MonteZuma

Cool bananas live. I'm all ears/eyes. Good luck with your essay. Oh...btw....I think that the Act in 1965 was a great thing and that it addressed a huge problem. Australia had similar, maybe even bigger issues regarding voting rights for Aboriginals...which were addressed by referendum at about the same time. I'm looking at this issue only from the point of view of the definition of 'representative'. I reckon its risky, but usually beneficial, to take a 'left-field' approach to answering these essay questions. There is nothing more boring for a lecturer than to read the same crap in different words over and over again. Give the lecturer something to think about and he'll reward you. Monte.

No. That is your opinion. And everything that you have written here is your opinion. Your point? I don't think there are replacement 'tools' at the moment. But your economic tools are seriously flawed. I suggest replacing them with real life experience (of poverty) and/or empathy and compassion. It isn't as trendy or sexy as most of what is dished up for a business or economics degree, but there certainly is a place for it. Is this a the "fancy jargon" you've been debunking? There is no jargon contained in that sentence. Don't dodge the issue. Do you deny that it is easier to make money if you have a large amount of capital to start with? Japan's growth was partly the result of sustained US support. Not piecemeal support like dumping subsidised wheat. Japan's failures cannot be blamed on 'differences from the American free market political system'. Bad monetary policy and bad loans coupled with a reliance on the manufacture of 'old economy' consumer goods for export income when there is a downturn in global consumption. Then the IT bubble burst hitting the 'new' economy. I'm not gonna pretend to understand all of the reasons for Japan's downturn, but it is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Free market policies were not the reason. What about South America and Africa? The first step towards changing a system is to point out the flaws. The flaws in the free market, global economy that wealthy groups are pushing for is that despite claims that it creates a level playing field it in fact does not. Do we want a level playing field anyway? I prefer the idea of tilting the playing field so that the disadvantaged have greater opportunity. I don't know how this should be done, but I know that accepting the innevitability of sweatshops and 3rd world poverty is not the solution. That is selfishness and blind ignorance. Monte.

OK My foreigners take on this......... The false premise is that the USA has a purely representative government. No nation does. I'd point out the low voter turnouts that exist in the US today and the fact, for example, that prisoners and young people can't vote. Nobody wants a purely representative government. Back in 1965 people in some states wanted a representative government even less than they do now. It would be interesting to compare voter turn out in those affected states prior, during and after debate about voting rights began to see if the federal government is any more representative today than it was then. A counter argument to my way of looking at this might be that although the proportion of voters might have fluctuated, the proportion of 'eligible' voters has obviously increased. But does this really matter? The argument remains that a government elected by only a portion of the population is not representative. Monte $0.02

Hardly. It is immoral that someone in an asian sweatshop works harder than I do and yet he lives in squalor and I live in comfort. Immoral. Regardless of the algorithms and fancy jargon that appears in most conventional text books, most sweatshop workers are trapped in poverty and globalisation won't help unless it contains checks and balances. Wealthy nations have a head start and they almost always use it to stay ahead of poorer nations. We have better education, better infrastructure and better social support services. We also just plain and simply have more money. Any economist should know the basic accounting principle that it is easier to make money if you have a large amount of capital to start with. Based on that obvious fact alone it is extraordinarilly difficult for a poor nation to get ahead in a free market. What big business and wealthy governments are calling for is a better opportunity to use the capital that they have to exploit poorer nations. It isnt about self sufficiency and it is only party about interdependence. It is about the efficient exploitation of resources. Cheap labour is a resource. Exploitation of that resource - and others - is the goal. On paper that might look fine and dandy - but it is exploitation of people we are talking about here. There are better ways to generate and distribute wealth, but because they aren't in your text books developing these ways is too difficult for todays narrowminded economists.

His he a superstar at the gay bar too? j/k

Well I'm with Akai on this. Culture does not need to be based on a common religion. It does not need to be based on religion at all. Culture is an artifact of history though, so religion will probably always have some influence - at least for the foreseeable future. Monte.

Latin America isn't a western country. Well yes, I did say 'most' western countries. Most of the countries that you have picked out (southern European) are basically in the 'bible belt' of the west. Ireland is a special case. But what about countries that are similar to the USA? The UK, Australia, Canada, western and northern Europe. I would argue that religion and politics are more separated in all of those countries compared to the US. I'm not talking about the proportion of people that are religious. I'm talking about the integration of religion and politics. In the UK for example, the Anglican church seems to be a big influence, but more so with royalty than politicians. Religion in the UK is more ceremonial and less pervasive in day-to-day politics than in the US. I could be wrong. There are people here who know more about US and UK politics than I. I'm yet to be convinced. Yes. Most of the countries were around when Jesus Christ walked the Earth. But Americans are in denial if they think that religion doesn't play a big part in political life. A big part that is compared to Canada, western and Northern Europe and Australasia. In 1897 the US Supreme Court declared that "the Cons!@#$%^&*ution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Cons!@#$%^&*ution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence." There is your legal status right there. Sure, the legal status has diminished over time, but that is my point. Religion, although still very important in the US political sphere, is in decline. The US is gradually catching up to the rest of the 'civilised' world. Of course. But I've read enough to get by. Undoubtedly. But I've seen, heard and read enough to formulate an opinion. Most Americans that I have met have been much more religious than most Australians, and more religious than most other people that I've met from western countries. Granted. Except maybe the slaves. But that is a whole new debate. But I think it is a fair bet that most people back then felt that non-christians were non-humans. I disagree - somewhat. Governments don't need to endorse religion and the bigger the separation between church and state the better. I support your view from one perspective though...I think that christian principles are principles that most of us in the west value highly, whether or not we are religious or even christian. I would like to see leadership - and a society - that endorses those principles without the religious connection. Maybe thats impossible, and maybe that is why you think separation of church and state won't work? If thats the case then I agree - to some extent. Monte.

Then take it to a private forum. Seriously. Consider me a personal adviser to the US people. I like to help. Monte.

How can you say that when some sweathshop worker works long ours, lives in a shack without basic utilities and has a life expectancy 40 years shorter than yours? That sweatshop worker is being economically raped. Globalisation is supported by rich people who want to get richer by pillaging the poor. We should support economic initiatives that make the system fairer. That won't happen because it would mean that you and I would have to give up a lot of what we have. Any politician that advocates that is doomed. Regardless....It is not fair that the luminesant dials on my wris!@#$%^&*ch were painted by some sweatshop worker who got paid $2 a day and is now dying of tongue cancer. In my country workers are not allowed to be subjected to that kind of treatment. If the system made me pay a few bucks more for my wris!@#$%^&*ch then that kind of stuff wouldnt happen. Capitalism and free market systems are flawed. No way. Helping would mean giving workers in poor countries the same pay and conditions as workers in my country. They work these jobs because the system is geared such that they cannot expect a better life. Your nikes would be 10 times the price if the workers were paid a fair wage. But you and I would rather keep the worker in poverty and have cheap shoes. The simple fact is that sweatshop workers work harder than you and I and get paid virtually nothing. That is where the moral hazard lies. That is the way the world works and it sucks. capitalism makes the world better for some - you and I included, but it hasn't made a better world for everyone. There are winners and losers and the poor are usually the losers. Of course they are bitter. I would be too if I were them. Just because of where I'm born I have access to excellent food, water, health care, education, jobs, etc, etc, etc. How the -*BAD WORD*- can that be fair. The system is letting down the world's poor. The blame for that can't be attributed only at the west...but our economic system makes it -*BAD WORD*-a hard for people to break out of poverty traps. Point proven. You'd rather have cheap shoes than pay a worker a fair price for making your shoes. Your comfortable with the idea that that worker will never have access to the standard of living that you are accustomed. This is why many people hate the west and especially the US. Globalisation represents a 'race to the bottom'. A race to find out where can we pay the cheapest price for labour and resources? That race leads to degradation. Degradation of quality of life and social and cultural fabric, environmental degradation and in extreme cases degradation of national economies and the the rise of banana republics. Monte.

OK...Based on the 1st and last paragraphs..... The thing about gobalisation/etc is that there are winners and losers. More often than not the losers are in poorer countries. These loony protesters that we see on the streets (remember S11, etc?) whenever the World bank, etc meet have a valid point, but it is ignored, largely because people in wealthy countries generally benefit from globablisation. It means that we can get access to cheap labour and resources more easily. Basically it allows the west to economically rape and pillage poorer countries more easily. There needs to be checks and balances. The way I see it, what globalisaton advocates are calling for is a removal of many checks and balances for more open access. Poor countries unfortunately don't have much bargaining power. They may as well just bend over, grab their ankles and take it like a errrm man. Or else we in the west can accept a lower standard of living and aim for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.....Well that might happen - IN OUR DREAMS. Westerners make up all sorts of excuses for why this can't happen - bad government in poor countries, religion, war, lazy people...whatever...well maybe sometimes these factors come to play - but the basic problem is that 'you gotta have money to make money' and 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'. Monte.

Tl, dr. Would someone like to post a summary?

WTF? Read a history book. As far as European history is concerned, America was a religious colony before it was anything else. The religious emphasis in US culture carried through to independence and is still evident today - albeit in a diminished form. The country was founded on christian principles - whether that is stated in the cons!@#$%^&*ution or not is irrelevant. -*BAD WORD*-. Remember this famous quote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." A recent US president went so far as to say that he considered that atheists were not proper American citizens. The christian 'ethic' pervades US society more than most other free western societies. WTF? Would a successful modern politician demand that wiches be burned at the stake? Or that alcohol be prohibited? Of course not. God is mentioned in EVERY US State cons!@#$%^&*ution. You conveniently ignored the Declaration of Independence which refers to 'the laws of nature and of nature's God', 'the Supreme Judge of the world' and 'the protection of Divine Providence' The importance of being a christian in order to be a moral and ethical person is implicit and explicit in most parts of US politics and society. It was much more explicit AND implicit in the days of your forefathers. The move away from the beliefs of your founding fathers is evident in attempts by some people to dis!@#$%^&*ociate the Cons!@#$%^&*ution from the D of I, and to remove symbols of God and religion from government and political ins!@#$%^&*utions.

I dunno... I seem to recall seeing quite a few obese nurses and ambulance officers in my time.

I've seen much better cameras in many banks. Regardless - It is much safer for the criminal if he doesn't reveal any distinguishing features. Whether that be his gun, his face, the way he talks or the way he walks. Your picture is irrelevant. There are many more examples where innocent people got '-*BAD WORD*-ed over' because the citizenry were better armed than the cops. The solution is to better arm the cops and take the arms out of the hands of the loonies. Not to rely on citizenry. If you cared enough to look objectively at this issue you'd see that more innocent people are killed accidentally or deliberately by hunting rifles - or 'armed citizenry' than are saved by them. Plain and simple fact. And...If your police force is inept, a better solution is to improve your police force.

Army: n A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare. War: n A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. One person doesn't make an army and can't wage a war. Granted though - individuals can join a war for whatever reason they choose - but usually only one reason is sanctioned by the State. Most people don't fight in wars for strictly personal reasons. Monte.

McDonald's doesn't make you fat. Eating too much and not exercising makes you fat. Btw....Why are most health care workers fat? They seem to do a lot of physical stuff - and yet many are still fat. Must be poor nutrition. They should introduce a SaladsPlus low fat menu into hospital canteens. Mickey Ds 4 EVA! - Well...not really.

Do what? Take matters into your own hands? Protect yourself and think. Nintey percent of the time it's just fear and intimidation that's used to rob a bank or someone on the street if the "weapon" is concealed. If someone's going to rob a bank, and doesn't show you the gun, just makes a bulge in their jacket, chances are good that it might just be their finger. If you're going to rob a bank with a real weapon you're gonna flash it because you know you can get away with it. WTF? Why would you flash a weapon thats probably been used in other holdups in front of all the security cameras in a bank. Screw that. And if your a bank teller, earning whatever measly income a bank teller makes, why the -*BAD WORD*- would you take a chance wondering whether that bulge is a gun, a finger, a cu-*BAD WORD*-ber or a hard-on. Just give over the frickin cash (after all - its not the tellers money) - and then take 6 months paid stress leave - on a beach - in a warm climate - with -*BAD WORD*-tails and stuff.

Nowadays most of us think that politics and religion should be separate. Your forefathers thought differently. In practice, politics and religion pretty much ARE separate...so this is just an emotional (to some) or academic (to others) debate. The real conflict here is tradition vs modernism. People often argue about that sort of trivial stuff. Its like people in wartime who argue that they aren't fighting for a 'flag'. Of course people don't fight for flags...they fight for what the flag represents - and in most cases that is 'a people' or 'a belief system'. Wars aren't waged by individuals - but by 'peoples' because of their 'beliefs'. So yeah....we can argue all we want about whether we should mention the word 'God' or 'flag' or whatever. But in the end it just doesn't matter. These outmoded phrases will be changed in the fullness of time. There is no need to upset a lot of emotional traditionalists for no good reason....So young ones...next time your'e asked - stand up when you hear the anthem, raise the flag, give a minutes silence....say that oath or pledge or prayer....and think about what the message is behind that archaic symbolism. You might find that it is worth swollwing that pride and just frickin conform for once in your sad, generation Y lives. Think about bigger issues, like why you have to pay so much to fund your retirement, while your baby boomer grandparents (who are currently sitting on their fat !@#$%^&*es ac-*BAD WORD*-ulating long service leave en!@#$%^&*lements) live it up at your expense. Now that IS a reason to get shirty with 'the establishment'. Monte.

Agree 50%

Hi mad... Well...its like this. According to the law....16yo is too young to vote. 16yo is too young to drink alcohol. 16yo is too young to go to an adult prison, etc, etc, etc. If this is the case, why is there a law that tacitly says that it is ok for a 16yo to get pregnant (or make someone pregnant). There is an inconsistancy there. Raising a child requires more maturity than most other things we are likely to do in our lives, and yet we have laws that send out a message that it IS ok for 16yo to have babies - but not to drink alcohol - WTF? Yes I know that there is contraception - but that is not written in the law. Determining the 'age of consent' is a legal question as much as it is a moral or ethical question. Anyway...if we as a community think that 16yo is too young to have babies then the law should reflect that. Just as the law reflects society's belief than incest and bigamy are wrong. OK...so using that logic (which I agree is philosophically questionable - as pointed out by millenium man), I think that the age of consent should be increased to the age when society does think that a person is likely to have the maturity to make babies. An alternative would be to specify that children (yes <18 = children) engaging in sex must use contraception or something similar (eg see a doctor or councillor first - or whatever). Yeah...it sounds authoritarian....and maybe it is, but fwiw, i think it is only authoritarian if the law is applied unjustly...as divine points out, it just isn't that simple..... Regardless..........Why is it that kids can make babies but they cant buy a bottle of wine? Does anyone dispute the fact that 16yo is too young to have babies? Monte.

I think somebody has "issues". 16yos should not have babies. Monte.

"Wont happen again" are the most famous last words in history. I would never say that about anything. The probablilty of a catastrophic failure at a nuclear plan might be small, but the consequences of such a failure would be huge. Where talking continental and maybe even global impacts. The counter argument is of course that the consequences of using fossil fuel (global warming) are also global. The best solution that remains is to cut down energy use and don't build new plants at all. Monte.

For the sake of discussion.... It should be whatever age you are allowed to vote or go to prison. 18 sounds about right. How can any authority say that you are too young to vote, but not too young to bring up a baby? Yeah...I know sex isn't just about making babies, but the law doesn't say you need to use contraception... So basically, the State is giving tacit approval for 16yos to have kids. That is gay. Monte.

Not necessarilly. Australia and probably other countries, might be able to produce crops for biofuels more cheaply than the US. Subsidies or imports might still happen. I don't think so. Soil takes so long to form that it is essentially non-renewable. Yes...improved land management can reduce the problem of soil loss, but we still need to deal with fertilisers (which are often derived from non-renewable sources - including petrochemicals) and pesticides. And, if we are going to produce the same amount of food AND then fuel as well, the world will need to dramatically increase the area of land under production. This would have massive implications. I'm not dismissing your arguments entirely. Biofuels are part of the suite of fuels that we can use to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but at the current rate of energy use I think it is not feasible. Monte

OK....I've read the crap....Here is my take.... Music....in its purest form - is a dying art form. In the long run, musicians/record companies/whoever are going to have to lower prices and add value to their product if they are going to continue making money. After all, what is a song? Three minutes of noise? They will never be able to secure that and stop P2P. The price of a single or a lp CD is ridiculously high, and now that we have MP3s and MP3 players, the media (CDs) is -*BAD WORD*-bersome and outdated. People want portable (and I really mean port-able) music, and they don't want crap. Digital, pick-and-pay distribution of high quality recordings (in stores or over the 'Net) at very low prices will probably be the way of the future. The industry will need to add value by switching to DVDs and selling the clips, with extra multimedia content if they are gonna justify the current level of pricing. I see this happening when the world switches to HDTV, and after DVDs become the standard for music - and after they become more versatile. If data is so easy to copy, transmit and store, record companies and musicians CANNOT justify the prices that they currently charge. There are too many pigs at the trough. Monte.