Today in a class we discussed refugees, there is an obvious problem. Who should take the moral obligation, there is humanitarian goals trying to be squeezed into an organization filled with Nations who have their own national goals that don't always jive with the ideas of humanitarianism.
These thoughts are so Human centric.

I realize that no moral problem in the world will be fixed until we all agree that there is no ultimate goal for humanity, that existence is the ultimate prize, but there is not a lot of people out there who dedicate their lives to loving the experience of living, there always needs to be progress.
Progress is what countries expect when the confront the issue of refugees, We don;t actually just want them to be free from violence and have access to food water and health care. If we did people would stop complaining about all the poor people in their neighborhood. No nation wants to take in a population that is full of subsistence living, of farmers or laborers who just want clothes on their backs and food in their mouth and a roof over their head, that doesn't help any ones economy, so what are the humanitarians ultimate goals for people in the world. Economists would say that people should maximize their utility, religious people might argue that the suffering of the soul should alleviated.
Nations don't ever realize their is no common goal that gets set on earth, nobody will find the solution, (how fatalist I know) What should be done is find the music we like and dance, that sounds like fun to me, maybe a barbecue with favorite foods.

80's in march how 21st century of you Minnesota. Damn Al Gore is probably either screaming "I told you so" or mumbling it through the tears of his futile attempt to make Americans give a damn. Who cares if the world is getting hotter, I need to watch ET and see why Annanicolesmith dies.