MonteZuma

Sure. Can I bring toys?

The world is populated by stupid people. Accidents happen. People take risks. It happens to ordinary people...

If we subscribe to the FLO philosophy, then why is there a 2 week limit, and why are there any exceptions at all? Every fetus potentially has a FLO? Does a baby conceived as a result of a rape have any less potential of a FLO than a re-*BAD WORD*-ed baby, or the baby of a 16yo girl, or a child destined to live in a single parent family, or a child whose parents are re-*BAD WORD*-ed? And.....Every soldier in a combat force has a FLO, but we deem it acceptable to kill soldiers in war? Many reformed prisoners on death row have a FLO. Sanctioned killing is a part of our society. And...Is it ok to kill people from different cultures because they dont have a FLO? They have a future life unlike ours. There are endless complicating factors. The FLO idea is full of holes. ...and so is every other 'rule of thumb' that anyone has ever applied to abortion. Where do you draw the line on any of this stuff. The answer will never be clear cut. Monte.

Hi S-*BAD WORD*-.... Yeah...Good point. But maybe the problem is that the conventional forms of education and awareness aren't effective? I suspect that the people who are falling pregnant are people who kinda fall through the net. You know....the kids who just don't pay attention at school. Maybe kids with low self-esteem or something. Kids that just don't care - for whatever reason. We need to provide those kids with a reason to care.... I don't know how, aside from the obvious motherhood things like tackiling poverty and abuse in the home and stuff like that. More personalised care in schools maybe...All of this sort of stuff might seem a far stretch from teen abortion, but I don't think so. Teenage pregnancy (in many or most cases) is a symptom of social dysfunction. Well I tend to agree, but I can also see the argument from the other side - aborting a life is somewhat distasteful - no matter what stage of development. Its very much a philosophical question. Monte

Yes...I guess so.....OK. I have an opinion now..... If the US invested more into education and social services instead of fighting this never-ending battle against abortion in court and in government then they would probably have a better outcome (ie less unplanned pregnancies - and less abortions - and probably a more cohesive society to boot). US abortion rates are already higher then other comparable countries with less restrictive abortion policies and more flexible at!@#$%^&*udes to sex, pregnancy and abortion in general. The best solutions to social 'problems' are through education and awareness programs - not top-down regulations from government and ill-informed preaching by clueless do-gooders.

Silk and Aileron wrote: Holy crap.....Take it to a room....

I don't have an opinion on this issue in particular, but in general I support the woman's right to choose....but 3 months? Wouldn't a woman know she was pregnant before then? Seems a late stage to make up your mind that you want an abortion? The thing about the whole issue of abortion, especially in the US, is that it is overly politicised. Get the issue off the political agenda altogether. Bush is wrong for making a song and dance of this issue in the courts. But I guess he has to do something now to save face. Monte.

Investigative reporting.

In Australia the media goes on witch hunts to milk out a story. Facts and truth and bent so much in the media's quest to generate drama and excitement. Meanwhile, they often completely miss the boat on other huge stories because the producers of news and current affairs are so engrossed in engineering an exclusive story. We had a story in the news about a year before Sept 11 2001 and before the Sydney Olympics (2000) about some Al Qaueda linked people in New Zealand who had maps of Australia's only nuclear reactor (Lucas Heights near Sydney) and had turned a room into a 'command centre'. There was a brief story about how maps were found, and other bits and pieces suggesting a terror plot. As soon as the olympics came along all the story was dropped and all we heard about was sport. The media still haven't gone back to explore the link between the Lucas Heights story, 9/11, Al Qaueda, etc. My theory is that the Lucas Height 'scare' was the result of Al Qaueda cells investigating the possibility of attacking the reactor - probably because of Australia's involvement in East Timor (Indonesia has the largest Muslim population of any country). My guess is that eventually even Al Qaueda got sidetracked and all effort was poured into planning the US attacks. Lucas Heights was forgotten. Well yeah...It could be just a crackpot theory....but the point remains...as far as Australia is concerned it was probably one of the most newsworthy events this century - the timing (1yr before S11) was incredible - and it it got dumped because it was easier to just report on sport. My guess is that the investigation was handed over to Australian secret services and it became too hard for reporters to extract information - so they dropped it. Maybe there was no terror plot....but the fact is it was never fully investigated by the press. Anyway...my take is that the media and governments are both easily manipulated....Just like everyone else, they have short attention spans and can only focus on 1 or 2 things at a time. They are easily distracted and easily persuaded. Check it.... http://www.turkishdailynews.com/old_editio...8_27_00/for.htm http://targetaustralia.multiservers.com/Nuke_003.html Monte.

The thing about conventional scientific wisdom is that the 'reality' changes all the time. At one time, conventional scientific wisdom was that we were about to enter an ice age. Now conventional science tells us we are about to enter a period of unprecedented warming. Reality is often an illusion, or at best a hypothesis. Well yeah, but that goes for many branches of science. Global warming is a classic example. Physical scientists, ecologists, economists, social scientists...none can make up their minds about what is going on now...let alone what will happen in the future. Economics is no different to any branch of science that needs to deal with infinite complexity. Monte.

Good idea!

Nice. No-one up for a 'my country is better than yours' pissing contest? SIGH.

Yes. Laziness isn't just a 1st world problem. I guess workers in the Dominican Republic are probably a little better off than in some countries - Haiti for example. Monte.

Basically we have 2 houses, a lower house that makes laws and an upper house that approves them. This is similar to US and UK systems of government. We have a parliamentary system, which basically means that the nation is run by the party with the most support in the lower house- rather than an individual (ie no president). Theoretically the Queen of Australia (who is also the British Monarch) is the head of state and her approval must be given before any law can come into effect. Her representative in Australia is the Governor General. By convention, the queen always takes the advice of the GG, and the GG always takes the advice of the government (except in very exceptional cir-*BAD WORD*-stances). So in effect, the parliament is the head of state. The Prime Minister has power only because his party allows him too - he is a party representative. The PM is not even mention in the Australian cons!@#$%^&*ution. Because of the different ways the two houses are elected, the government can only have free reign to make laws if it has a substantial majority amongst a big cross section of Australians (The upper house is skewed such that smaller states have the same representation in the upper house as bigger states - and also such that minor parties or 'independents' have a greater chance of entering office). This wide spread of power is a great !@#$%^&*et IMO. An important feature of the Australian system is complusory voting. About 95% of enrolled voters turn up on any given election day. This means that our government is more representative than in other nations and this has had a big impact IMHO in making the government work harder to appeal to the ordinary citizen. The system has flaws - but in effect works very well and equitably. It is the mostest elitest system. So neener - my government is better than yours Monte.

The amount of spin doctoring certainly has increased in recent times. Sometimes it is incredibly blatant and yet the media doesn't bat an eyelid. The quality of reporting by the media seems to be getting worse and worse. News is more about pictures and less about information than it has ever been. I think politicians are capitalising on the media's incompetence. Facts are being manipulated constantly - the fictional "imminent threat of the use of WMDs" by Saddam was a classic example. Yes I feel betrayed. But more than anything I feel let down by the incompetent media and by incompetent opposition parties and politicians. There is nobody around to 'keep the -*BAD WORD*-s honest'. Monte.

Nintendo. Your views are always a breath of fresh air because you live in a society that is very different to most of us....But how typical are you of the average person in the street in the '3rd World'? My guess would be, because you have Internet access and enough spare time to play SS, you probably have a lifestyle that is more like a typical westerner than a typical sweatshop worker. For the poorest of the poor, migration is not an option. If I was a sweatshop worker, I'd be angry at the west - like the angry kid at Burger King who spits in the burgers of arrogant customers - that kind of angry. I suspect that most aren't angry because they are apathetic. They are apathetic because they are powerless. Monte.

This smacks of Commons Theory. Fortunately we don't live in a perfect democracy. Educated people are sensible enough to at least consider issues in the long-term and don't insist that their governments raid the treasury. Indicators like inflation and unemployment quickly highlight bad fiscal policy. Monte.

Well, I don't agree with the 'steps' but if I did I would have to agree. The US is at this point and most of the rest of the western world is quickly catching up.

I have not seen any evidence of this anywhere. The fact that some nations and people in the 3rd world "benefit" (financially anyway) from contact with people in the 1st world is obvious. But it doesn't mean that the system is fair or ethical. There are millions of people in Mexico who don't benefit from first world wealth - and never will. The plight of illegal immigrants in the US is sad even though they probably have better lives than many of their counterparts back home. The cost of living is so much cheaper because workers are paid a pittance for their labour. CCF exaggerates. They need to to encourage wealthy westerners to hand over their cash. I don't support charities like CCF for reasons that I might go into in another post. But I acknowledge that they probably do some good work. Perhaps, but I think yours are more so. I think that it is obscene that people in those kinds of professions make so much money. Why should an aged care nurse whose job is to wipe crap from the back sides of demented patients make $10/hour while a fashion model makes $1,000. Who does the most for society? Obscene. Very little is skewed towards the 3rd world. They are disadvantaged. By definition.

Race isn't a big deal in this country any more. I've only heard the analogy used in relation to women's issues.

Mad. If you want the reader's digest version of this, read the last quote/reply only..... Wrong. They can't become self sufficient on their own. They don't have the resource - and they are indentured by loans and other restrictions/limitations/controls, partly resulting from their involvement in the global economic system. Infrastructure need not be a 'persistant gift'. A bag of subsidised wheat is. Capacity-building will reduce dependence. The rail system in India is a success story. They are the biggest public sector employer and provide important social services, including the transport of relief supplies after natural disasters. India is a poor country and their rail system won't have the same level of service and maintainence that we have, but they manage one of the largest rail systems in the world very well under the cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. In any case I'm thinking of infrastructure that allows nations to grow their own food, be self sufficient in water, and to build adequate shelter. That type of infrastructure need not be expensive to maintain. Railways and other things are less important. No they don't. Some people have learned nothing from September 11. If your governement wants national security it will need to win hearts and minds in other nations. They have a duty to their people. If their people weren't selfish then their people would also want to see that extreme poverty was eliminated everywhere. But I agree that we live in a selfish world and that is why nothing is liklely to change in the forseeable future. I used to think that. But the older that I get, the more I realise that this just isn't true. There are some nasty, intractable problems and things for some Peoples are getting worse. What most people misunderstand is how complex the causes and solutions are. Some people call for simplistic and shortsighted solutions to complex and chaotic problems. That is easy for you to say. You aren't the one being trodden on. In any case, I disagree with the right wing rhetoric. What you fail to see is that all of the major empires in history earned their wealth by exploiting poorer, weaker nations and regions. We are seeing this trend continue today.

Brevity at the expense of cogency is a false economy. If someone writes a post that addresses many complicated issues then any thoughtful reply is likely to be reasonably long. Monte.

To get something meaningful from those stats you need to compare with unaffected northern states. Does everyone who is registered to vote actually vote? Very important point. Why do they continue to record the colour of voters and how do they do this? Other demographical issues need to be considered too. Interesting though. Thanks. Btw. The gl!@#$%^&* ceiling analogy is a good one.

Good point.

Well let me put it this way. There should be a focus on building strong, healthy communities, especially in the poorest nations. In many cases this will mean reducing dependence on foreign trade. In many cases it will mean shifting away from the modern, western economic system altogether and going back to basics. This is what the poorest of the poor need. They won't be saved by making Nikes. No. There are many more alternatives. There are many ways to live without engaging wholeheartedly in global economics. Even in modern times there are communities that have reduced reliance on outsiders and survived quite well (even in the US). Their per capita incomes aren't high, but their quality of life is often much higher than that of a sweatshop worker. The basics are food, water and shelter. Lets give everyone in the world those essentials and then see where we can go from there. It is criminal that society does not give people those basic essentials. Don't just ship in containers full of bottled water, dump bags of GM wheat, and put up canvas tents. Build infrastructure so that these people are self sustaining. We need to do these things even if there isn't a buck in it. We need to do these things because it is the right thing to do. Yes. The fact is that if we pay a fair price for the labour that we use then prices will go up - and wages too. Inflation would be huge. That alone should tell you that the system is flawed. We rely on cheap labour to keep the economy going. Poverty is essential to the system. They starve because they aren't self sufficient. A feature of globalisation is less self sufficiency in essential areas and reliance on trade. As you said, many of these nations have few resources, so when the international economy gets shaky, they suffer more than robust, resource rich, nations. Most nations do have sufficient natural resources to supply food, water and shelter. What they usually lack is the infrastructure to tap these resources continually and sustainably. By infrastructure I mean capital, political and social infrastructure. Lets give them that infrastructure out of the kindness of our hearts. In theory. But what will happen when they start to demand the same wages as 1st world countries? Nike will move out and look for a poorer country to exploit. It doesn't always work like this idea economic model suggests. In any case, who says that earning more dollars as a sweatshop worker is better than earning nothing as a self-sufficient farmer or tradesperson. The almighty dollar is not the way to measure success, especially in the poorest of 3rd world countries. There are a few big !@#$%^&*umptions there. My !@#$%^&*umption is this - Consumption in the 1st world is way too high and is unsustainable. We need to consume less. Less water, less electricity, less oil, less land, etc, etc. What will happen to your trade dempendent 3rd world country when the 1st world finally develops resource-saving technologies. Answer: They are screwed. My solution: In addition to giving 3rd world countries food, water and shelter, lets also give them education. Lets give them this out of the kindness of our heart. Won't happen. But it should. Do you really think the American public will let that happen. Political suicide. The rich will want to hold on to what they have at the expense of the poor. It almost always works that way. Not evil. Just selfish. No. What I say is screw production. Production and consumption is the cause of the poverty trap. Lets get self sufficiency happening first and then think about trade. That will hurt the first world, but it will alleviate suffering in the third world. But as some writers have said, most of the first world are resource rich. Self sufficiency should be easy for them. Some countries will need help. Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel, etc. But self sufficient regions are probably more important than self sufficient nations. Cooperation is important. Trade isn't necessarilly. Well that sums up your views, but not reality. This is complicated stuff. We need investment to fund advances in technology that should benefit everyone. The current system is pretty good at encouraging R&D. But to suggest the only way to move forward is to increase reliance on international trade is wrong and dangerous. We need to think outside the square and leave the text books behind.