User talk:Drtan

www.westonreserve.org UNESCO accredited university --fair-ism by Prof.Albert Sze Wei Tan (604)324-9302 (604)813-8423 altan@vcn.bc.ca Home Page About fair and equlaity is a definition-because it is a definition that defines policy;;;;;;

human use to have slaves, have extreme policy ;like polygamy; like war to control land; to control resources...

Whats NewThis is not possible, why should you read on? People say it is meaningless to think about these things--- for example, we do not know how to put a value on a human being---how much should your wife be worth... how much is a child worth???? How much is clean air worth? or clean water? How do we approach border disputes?... How do we deal with more and more conflicts.... This is the reason, or maybe there is a personal reason you should think about the issues of a just society, or equality... Create your fair society-help me-WHY such urgency-- look at this problem--1 billion people in the world is living below the povety line. if only 5% of defense spending (ten years) is used for social -basic services--there will be no povety- and less conflicts. a

FAIRISM

To address the soi-disant Global Problem of imbalance, it is necessary to define the problem. Which imbalances are most glaring? Which are most accessible? Which are most ‘doable’?

The imbalance of resources is thrust daily into our faces. Headlines In the news feature photos and text decrying the lack of water that hampers farmers in Africa and India. Other equally horrifying reports educate that excess water, in the form of floods, torrential rains, and tidal waves have yet again washed out homes, villages, transportation routes, and hence communications in storm or earthquake stricken regions. The daily struggle of countless villagers to collect and carry home sufficient drinking water keeps many adults from adequate time to tend fields, flocks, families, let alone free up an adult to work outside the home for cash income. Cruel irony, at the same time, has countless thousands striving to dike, or drain flooded areas, or cope with water-borne illnesses. When the floodwaters recede, another problem has been added, that of rebuilding homes, fields, flocks, gardens.

Where can they find enough hands to do all this labour? And so another resource is added to the unequal balance: Who is doing the work?

The answer outrages many in more prosperous nations. For it is children who are doing the extra work, perhaps weaving carpets in quite primitive factories, more hours daily than enlightened labour legislation allows. Or the children may be working alongside adult family members in the home, spinning, weaving wool, straw, cotton, as the family that works together struggles to earn pay together.

Herein is the first of unequal resources globally: a workforce that is mature enough, healthy enough, fed enough, with adequate transportation to reach workplaces, and adequate support within the community to maintain family life.

Can Fairism prevent inequalities of this magnitude? Can Fairism adjust eons of social inequalities, cross the borders of differing social mores, penetrate prideful cultures?

If we can agree that Fairism is to be discussed at all, let us attach some parameters to the term.

Is FAIRISM only an attitude?

It is hard to argue against the premise that among the social responsibilities of adults in any society are requirements to work for both justice and charity, as these concepts are defined within that society. Such attitudinal behaviours are deemed the most difficult to change through education, their inaccessibility a product of their emotional and culturally habitual overuse and reinforcement.

In paternalistic societies, and in cultures where strong messages of ‘Don’t Change’ are proudly enforced, such a statement would be ludicrous. In Top-Down organizations, be they village, family, corporation, family, it is those individuals deemed to be ‘at the top of the heap’ who formulate values and issue edicts for ‘proper behaviours’ to prevent the sorts of change that the cultural group perceives as social upheaval. Ancestor worship, unquestioning religious observation, armed forces’ obedience, factory or retail work cadres, corporate loyalty, national jingoism: Name them, these few examples represent only the tiniest fraction of those institutions which circumvent individual responsibility by enforcing loyalty and obedience to one omnipotent Headman. Thus they deliberately cultivate mindless obedience in the name of stability; the societal value their members have been raised to accept as normal. A huge portion of citizens in industrialized societies fit into this readily identifiable group. Even larger pools of population in unindustrialized nations take such a tribal-like organization to be the only right way to live.

And identified they have been. The Graves’ model of observable behaviours of several groups of adults in various societies is an enlightening tool to consult. As a result of lengthy studies conducted some years ago, eight such attitudinal groups of consumers can be readily identified. They are represented in families, in itinerant tribal groups, in towns, villages, in cities both old and new. Workers of whatever ages are deemed necessary. Needed to expend their personal energy ‘resource’ to build economic resources, including wealth and political power, which remain vested in the hereditary Head Person or perhaps appointed or chosen holder of the highest office in the group. (father figure, God’s representative on earth, President, King, the Boss.)

This doesn’t leave much time or even consideration for what we first identified as possible social changes for the better: charity and social justice. At least not as some of us Westerners would see them practiced. Within the above social systems obedience is seen as the primary adult responsibility. And charity? Which observable behaviour of the concept are we seeking? Love, or mutuality, or gifting others, or recognizing others’ needs, and hence sharing resources?

While we have identified inequality as a global problem, perhaps others are beginning to see FAIRISM in some form or other could address the complex problem from an economic approach. Never discount the amount of public education that will be entailed. The underlying attitude of inequality among members within one social group are deeply rooted in time, in success stories of former culture that rose to prominence on the shoulders of such systems, that died and left monuments erected during their greatness.

Is our industrialized society about to become yet another example of an ideal that died in the barrage of outside pressure, even while attempting to exert pressures to change, to upgrade, against the ultimate victors? For each great society has slipped from prominence over time. The Etruscans, the Babylonians, Sumerians, Pharaonic Egyptians, the Huns of Atilla, the Mongols of the Khans: the list is endless, because we are ignorant of many that preceded those few for which we actually possess records.

Recognizing the importance, and intractability of attitude change among what the Graves team finally referred to as ‘Tribal’ organization (one deemed Head, others all bunched around him/her), we can put that ideal aside, table it, and consider another major concept in the problem definition.

Can FAIRISM be a dream?

If this is so, dreamers can work to bring it to reality.

When groups of thinkers gather, they can transform a dream into doable goals.

The first step is to define the dream parameters.

Then goals to reach those conditions are carefully set. This is when and where the practical confrontation of exactly the attitudes of Who Is In Charge and Change/ Don’t Change will first be confronted.

Within each and every work group, be it Citizens’ Forum, Government Study, religious reformation, School Board, or Book Club, to successfully reach goals, the group must first reach consensus on the goals, the task method, the form in which feedback is returned to the group, the time frame of the task.

If we reframe those two huge questions (the Power and the Value issues) as adult responsibility (individual relinquishment of power to the group as a whole) and charity(accepting others’ right to be different), we end up right back where we started.

That is inevitable, because FAIRISM seeks to do exactly that: To address the basic inequalities of Power and Allocation of Resources between large groups, so it must be engineered from the bottom up, not laid on from the top down.

If the people don’t want it, it won’t fly.

No matter how much the powers that be shout, plead, threaten, placate, if the markets won’t buy, you can’t sell. Not even a new idea can be forced down the consumers’ throats, although the enforce change may seem to work at first.

Countless revolutions, revolts, uprisings, migrations, invasions all speak to the fact that groups have the power to resist. They can leave, stay and fight, go underground, join another, perhaps allied group.

But they don’t change.

In their new location, or in uniform, cave, dugout or disguise they will still espouse their old ‘Proper’ values, but with much more power now.

They have become Martyrs to a Cause.

Now the Power cadres have an intractable problem with which to deal. And a war to fight that cannot be won.

Another approach to addressing more equal distribution of resources is to strive for behaviour change. Easily observable, behaviour indicates to seasoned observers the values espoused. We walk the talk, hence the values underlying it, whether we intend to or not. We can be read like books, when observers are trained to be unobtrusive, minutely alert, work in teams, share findings, and objectively review the observations.

An easy approach is to start with observing whether person have a propensity to share what they have.

FAIRISM is based on that behaviour, the individuals with most resources willing giving up part of theirs to those members who have less, who are deemed by the group to be needy. Both a dream and an opportunity to ‘act out’ positive group values, such sharing must be based on agreement between groups, if it is to become more than individual charity. Such negotiations require much preparation.

The first factor will be re education of all affected, exposure of one set’s NEEDS and equal exposure of the other’s RESOURCES.

It can be deemed humiliating to have to admit being needy, and there again we hit bedrock societal values. Cultures based on narcissistic values of omnipotence, omniscience, invulnerability, and perfection do not take well to admitting negative aspects of those values (i.e. weakness, ignorance, powerlessness, imperfection.) Individuals in the discussion groups won’t, either! True charity will be evident here first: can these individuals allow themselves to be needy? Can they admit to being ignorant, or imperfect, in public, and admit to being ready to accept outside help? For as the study group goes, so will the culture, only much more slowly.

There is the second major stepping stone: Time. It takes time for education to transfer from new facts learned to observable behaviour. (This is called learning.)

Training programs, educational experiments: all their success or failure will depend on designing learning experiences suitable to the different learning styles of each participant. Complexity abounds here: speed of deliver, method of delivery, medium of delivery. No use preparing clever distance education programs to be delivered via satellite if the recipients have no electricity. Let alone TV or radio or Internet receivers.

Or if they have no ‘on the ground’ coaches (or teachers, mentors, tutors, peer counselors: which is preferred again depending on individual learning styles.)

Or if they have no practice opportunities. What good is the newest textbook on surgery if the student surgeon has never observed or participated in surgical procedures? Or if that student has no internship under an experienced person, in a reasonably acceptable surgery?

For this is the way in which feedback will be provided to all parties outlining the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          f these results is essential to allow refinements, to allow social, intellectual and emotional behaviour changes in the participants, and in their organizations.

FAIRISM

To address the soi-disant Global Problem of imbalance, it is necessary to define the problem. Which imbalances are most glaring? Which are most accessible? Which are most ‘doable’?

The imbalance of resources is thrust daily into our faces. Headlines In the news feature photos and text decrying the lack of water that hampers farmers in Africa and India. Other equally horrifying reports educate that excess water, in the form of floods, torrential rains, and tidal waves have yet again washed out homes, villages, transportation routes, and hence communications in storm or earthquake stricken regions. The daily struggle of countless villagers to collect and carry home sufficient drinking water keeps many adults from adequate time to tend fields, flocks, families, let alone free up an adult to work outside the home for cash income. Cruel irony, at the same time, has countless thousands striving to dike, or drain flooded areas, or cope with water-borne illnesses. When the floodwaters recede, another problem has been added, that of rebuilding homes, fields, flocks, gardens.

Where can they find enough hands to do all this labour? And so another resource is added to the unequal balance: Who is doing the work?

The answer outrages many in more prosperous nations. For it is children who are doing the extra work, perhaps weaving carpets in quite primitive factories, more hours daily than enlightened labour legislation allows. Or the children may be working alongside adult family members in the home, spinning, weaving wool, straw, cotton, as the family that works together struggles to earn pay together.

Herein is the first of unequal resources globally: a workforce that is mature enough, healthy enough, fed enough, with adequate transportation to reach workplaces, and adequate support within the community to maintain family life.

Can Fairism prevent inequalities of this magnitude? Can Fairism adjust eons of social inequalities, cross the borders of differing social mores, penetrate prideful cultures?

If we can agree that Fairism is to be discussed at all, let us attach some parameters to the term.

Is FAIRISM only an attitude?

It is hard to argue against the premise that among the social responsibilities of adults in any society are requirements to work for both justice and charity, as these concepts are defined within that society. Such attitudinal behaviours are deemed the most difficult to change through education, their inaccessibility a product of their emotional and culturally habitual overuse and reinforcement.

In paternalistic societies, and in cultures where strong messages of ‘Don’t Change’ are proudly enforced, such a statement would be ludicrous. In Top-Down organizations, be they village, family, corporation, family, it is those individuals deemed to be ‘at the top of the heap’ who formulate values and issue edicts for ‘proper behaviours’ to prevent the sorts of change that the cultural group perceives as social upheaval. Ancestor worship, unquestioning religious observation, armed forces’ obedience, factory or retail work cadres, corporate loyalty, national jingoism: Name them, these few examples represent only the tiniest fraction of those institutions which circumvent individual responsibility by enforcing loyalty and obedience to one omnipotent Headman. Thus they deliberately cultivate mindless obedience in the name of stability; the societal value their members have been raised to accept as normal. A huge portion of citizens in industrialized societies fit into this readily identifiable group. Even larger pools of population in unindustrialized nations take such a tribal-like organization to be the only right way to live.

And identified they have been. The Graves’ model of observable behaviours of several groups of adults in various societies is an enlightening tool to consult. As a result of lengthy studies conducted some years ago, eight such attitudinal groups of consumers can be readily identified. They are represented in families, in itinerant tribal groups, in towns, villages, in cities both old and new. Workers of whatever ages are deemed necessary. Needed to expend their personal energy ‘resource’ to build economic resources, including wealth and political power, which remain vested in the hereditary Head Person or perhaps appointed or chosen holder of the highest office in the group. (father figure, God’s representative on earth, President, King, the Boss.)

This doesn’t leave much time or even consideration for what we first identified as possible social changes for the better: charity and social justice. At least not as some of us Westerners would see them practiced. Within the above social systems obedience is seen as the primary adult responsibility. And charity? Which observable behaviour of the concept are we seeking? Love, or mutuality, or gifting others, or recognizing others’ needs, and hence sharing resources?

While we have identified inequality as a global problem, perhaps others are beginning to see FAIRISM in some form or other could address the complex problem from an economic approach. Never discount the amount of public education that will be entailed. The underlying attitude of inequality among members within one social group are deeply rooted in time, in success stories of former culture that rose to prominence on the shoulders of such systems, that died and left monuments erected during their greatness.

Is our industrialized society about to become yet another example of an ideal that died in the barrage of outside pressure, even while attempting to exert pressures to change, to upgrade, against the ultimate victors? For each great society has slipped from prominence over time. The Etruscans, the Babylonians, Sumerians, Pharaonic Egyptians, the Huns of Atilla, the Mongols of the Khans: the list is endless, because we are ignorant of many that preceded those few for which we actually possess records.

Recognizing the importance, and intractability of attitude change among what the Graves team finally referred to as ‘Tribal’ organization (one deemed Head, others all bunched around him/her), we can put that ideal aside, table it, and consider another major concept in the problem definition.

Can FAIRISM be a dream?

If this is so, dreamers can work to bring it to reality.

When groups of thinkers gather, they can transform a dream into doable goals.

The first step is to define the dream parameters.

Then goals to reach those conditions are carefully set. This is when and where the practical confrontation of exactly the attitudes of Who Is In Charge and Change/ Don’t Change will first be confronted.

Within each and every work group, be it Citizens’ Forum, Government Study, religious reformation, School Board, or Book Club, to successfully reach goals, the group must first reach consensus on the goals, the task method, the form in which feedback is returned to the group, the time frame of the task.

If we reframe those two huge questions (the Power and the Value issues) as adult responsibility (individual relinquishment of power to the group as a whole) and charity(accepting others’ right to be different), we end up right back where we started.

That is inevitable, because FAIRISM seeks to do exactly that: To address the basic inequalities of Power and Allocation of Resources between large groups, so it must be engineered from the bottom up, not laid on from the top down.

If the people don’t want it, it won’t fly.

No matter how much the powers that be shout, plead, threaten, placate, if the markets won’t buy, you can’t sell. Not even a new idea can be forced down the consumers’ throats, although the enforce change may seem to work at first.

Countless revolutions, revolts, uprisings, migrations, invasions all speak to the fact that groups have the power to resist. They can leave, stay and fight, go underground, join another, perhaps allied group.

But they don’t change.

In their new location, or in uniform, cave, dugout or disguise they will still espouse their old ‘Proper’ values, but with much more power now.

They have become Martyrs to a Cause.

Now the Power cadres have an intractable problem with which to deal. And a war to fight that cannot be won.

Another approach to addressing more equal distribution of resources is to strive for behaviour change. Easily observable, behaviour indicates to seasoned observers the values espoused. We walk the talk, hence the values underlying it, whether we intend to or not. We can be read like books, when observers are trained to be unobtrusive, minutely alert, work in teams, share findings, and objectively review the observations.

An easy approach is to start with observing whether person have a propensity to share what they have.

FAIRISM is based on that behaviour, the individuals with most resources willing giving up part of theirs to those members who have less, who are deemed by the group to be needy. Both a dream and an opportunity to ‘act out’ positive group values, such sharing must be based on agreement between groups, if it is to become more than individual charity. Such negotiations require much preparation.

The first factor will be re education of all affected, exposure of one set’s NEEDS and equal exposure of the other’s RESOURCES.

It can be deemed humiliating to have to admit being needy, and there again we hit bedrock societal values. Cultures based on narcissistic values of omnipotence, omniscience, invulnerability, and perfection do not take well to admitting negative aspects of those values (i.e. weakness, ignorance, powerlessness, imperfection.) Individuals in the discussion groups won’t, either! True charity will be evident here first: can these individuals allow themselves to be needy? Can they admit to being ignorant, or imperfect, in public, and admit to being ready to accept outside help? For as the study group goes, so will the culture, only much more slowly.

There is the second major stepping stone: Time. It takes time for education to transfer from new facts learned to observable behaviour. (This is called learning.)

Training programs, educational experiments: all their success or failure will depend on designing learning experiences suitable to the different learning styles of each participant. Complexity abounds here: speed of deliver, method of delivery, medium of delivery. No use preparing clever distance education programs to be delivered via satellite if the recipients have no electricity. Let alone TV or radio or Internet receivers.

Or if they have no ‘on the ground’ coaches (or teachers, mentors, tutors, peer counselors: which is preferred again depending on individual learning styles.)

Or if they have no practice opportunities. What good is the newest textbook on surgery if the student surgeon has never observed or participated in surgical procedures? Or if that student has no internship under an experienced person, in a reasonably acceptable surgery?

For this is the way in which feedback will be provided to all parties outlining the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          f these results is essential to allow refinements, to allow social, intellectual and emotional behaviour changes in the participants, and in their organizations.

fair society-a fair for all, a maniefestoto better human -what is it mean---to replace the axiom of the two old theory-economics-one is capitalisim-the other is communism

the problem with intense cut throat competition-competition is not necesary healthy

the theory of communism--the marxist theory of redistribution of wealth-the problem is non-productivity-one must wonder how to search or balance-am i not right to define the right mix

what is the difference?

capitalism will not surive and so is communism- our human minds is in need of a new solution the mew way of thinking===fair-ism

IN the most basic concept of modern econmies-one society must balance thw food policy and shelter policy

What is fair?

is it fair that the farmer is not making enough to feed themselves. What can policy be used to make world safe and stable.

Look at the problem with the WHO organization meeting,the farmer is making such a demonstration, they used violence and force to express their injustice and problem.

We must first stablize our food - especially the importance of organic food production or the safe use of highly research methods to make food production the livelhood of humanity.

shelter policy- we must have the will and the energy to make sure third world population is nicley clothed and feed themselves. in the capacity of the today technology-we have the know=how and the urgent need to stblize population.

immigration-if the society is stable-our society will decrease in population migration ;therefore, it will make our world,our global villages- a safe place to live,,,,,,,,,,,,,,look at the progress of recent development in CHINA, and INDIA-these are hugh populated areas,they can and must stablize their food and shelter policy first. We need to make it FAIR......................

Transportation-how do we understand the proble-how to use policy to make waste and redundancy

the concept of one fair society. This is almost impossible according to many people because why would people want our society to be fair...why would the have contribute to the have-not to make our society fair-According to the information provided by red cross---1 billion people in the world is below the povety line.... Why is that we allow such imbalance, or simply say, who cares.......

> why is that landlord do not have to work and renter have to work to pay rent????? > why is that you and me cannot start a telephone company but the ceo > of telus is making millions, why is that the ceo of major oil company in > usa are making millions when the rest of us has to pay and work the tax? > these are interesting point i have observed in my little world, and make > it wonder when and if it is possible to have a equality in our society, or > fair. what do you think of www.fairism.4t.com > i often tell people fairness is not achievable in human society, only > through revolution, violence, and big changes will occur, like the french > revolution, or the communist revolution. > But I must admit i am wrong, so far, our society in vancouver is still in peace, but look at places like haiti, US, or Hong Kong or Phillipines.

What a big gap in the "have " and the" have not".. The society is shaped by POLICY and LAWs......good society is a result of good law, and bad policy will make bad society.

The urgent need for " right for food "and "right for sheltershelter, yes, "It is possible that society can have a fairier distribution of these two basic things.

We have, in many countries establised human right policy, how about the need for both shelter and food policy.. the right to eat,,, it is so basic,, and the right to live in a safe place.. the right to work.. also, this is another imperative way of thinking. The pure competitive model does not seems to work ,, what do we produce in our society, big gap between the poor and the rich. Non-caring -- why do the society need to care about the others, when thereare no incentive to ..We must in my mind, change our model of education into -co-operation ,

I give you two basic examples how policy can shape a business;

business a has the pure policy of rewarding each person only. Why would each person help each other, There thinking is limited to very linear - if i am good, i only need to benefit myself, no incentive tp help the other.

Another model is based on the thinking of co-operation..each person is rewarded by helping the other person, so, there is an atmosphere of helping each other. non-competitiveness.

THe need for united nations to push for this concepts and ideas--the need for world stability and the need for banning of economic slavery and the will of the rich nations to give up their power and authority over rights and claims..

the urgent message is that we have enough for everyone, we,, why do we human are blinded by the 'sheer " useless thinking, that we have not enough...

the game of monopoly-have anyone play this game, This is quite an illustration of how real capitalism can create such imbalance of property distribution ---first, land is not fairly distributed, or any form of resources, landlord will continue to enjoy priviledges and obtain much better than normal from the renters. This also apply to ownership of essential services or essential minerals or resources. Look at what happen in the forest company,, specific individual and companies can have more power than others, without benefiting the rest.....................The riot in France, the riot in France i s an indicator of social injustice, it is about the anger and the energy imbalance between the have and the have not....WHy do you think that will happen, it does not happen in a country when people are happy, it happens because these people have no choice or if they have better way, to express their anger, Oppression in the society , will lead to more and more violence and disharmony, You do not have to wait for too long.... this will happen unless we have the energy and thw will to fix the problem The other day when I was tlaking to other people about this problem ,,, they say so,who cares,,,,,,,wait and see, when one day, it happens to your society, your neighbourhood, and to your family.... how do you explain to a five years old, that a specific group of people in the world can claim specific rights and property rights to certain eg minerals, lumbar, oil , or water- Is it fair that a specific group of people of more rights and priviedges, and ownership rights. is capitalisim the real cure for humanity--does competition. make the best of manwhy don't we favour co-operation

the main objective of fai-ism- is two major axioms-

1-co-operation

2-honesty

it is also a waste of resources when there is duplication.waste o bidding of human potential

when a project is in the open market, there are bidders-each of the bidders waste their energy in defining the best parameters for a solution eg a bridges-

so the problem is duplication, lots of duplications.

many projects will be drafted and there is too much fighting among the human. what is the solutions.!!!!!!!

Elimination of paper coins and currency

set up personal entitlement

fair share of resources, and important resoucres.water

air quality, oil

gas

no more priviledges--!!!!!

we are the same same share--it is an interesting idea-but it makes senses

personal producitity units.....ppu

it is used in lieu of money and coins

what a waste of money and efforts

currency trading currency ---up and down

people lose money because they have up and down currency....... society Enhancements fair--a fair

a society which there is an appropriate agreement between human to work towards the same goals--this is possible, but it requires international effort.

This is not easy because we, hunman have decided to put up borders and claim ownership of things, lands, property, oil fields, and mineral resources.

So, now can these natural materials be fairly distributed, this is not going to be easy.

Example: arab rich countries have long been enjoyinh the rich resources of oil ,

How to judge government policies and its effects?

You must look at how wide the gap between the rich and the poor, it is through policy that make the gap. it is through the "greed" of people that make the big gap between the have and the have not.

How and why 5% of defense budget (ten years) ;;that all you need to feed and give proper social services--1 billion people. 1 billion peole live below povety line.

How is policy and how can it changes the society?

It is through democracy and awareness.

comment is welcome ,,from my friend, miss wong

Hi Albert, Sorry for the delayed reply. I just got back in town two days ago and work is piling up on my desk like crazy! What you have stated in the subject line and body of your email is essentially classism and the systematic discrimination that is built into our society. You have hit the heart of the problem of our social structure today, even in the countries of which we call "civilized". I do not think that there is a fair system, and I think even there is a resistance to creating a fair system. Because those in power are enjoying privilege in this tiered social structure, and it is in their interest to keep the society this way, for them to hold on to power. This is true even in the school system and how social justice initiatives are often met with resistance even from school administration. This is just a reflection of the fact that we are not as liberal as we'd like to think we are. You are somewhat correct in the sense that we need civil unrest to create big changes i.e. revolutions. But I do see good reforms happening slowly. I like to keep the hope that even if we cannot achieve 100% equity, we can still create a more equitable system - and social education is key. The idea of "changing the world" seems quite ambitious, but I believe that with more people and more aspirations, we can make it happen - starting from the grassroots and educate the less privileged to not to accept living under discrimation, and take it up when we're faced with such. I see the website has been updated since I last visited. I think it is a good website but more publicity is needed to promote it. Also, I think it would look more professional without the pop-up margins at the top and right margin. The content is good and I think it has potential to expand as a web forum and allow social activists to share their opinions. PS. Are you still in Vancouver? Or do you actually live in Vancouver? Thank you so much for your emails and I do look forward to reading them, Josephine

Getting FAir --From My Site! volunteer needed If you like to contribute t this project ,

to fair-ism

Prof. Dr Albert Tan

5490 Ross treet

vancouver canada

BC

v5w3k9

altan@vcn.bc.ca Behind the Scenes of My Home Page the idea is new, i need your help

email@emailaddress.com