Bacchus

But don't you think a woman also have a FLO? I mean, even if i get a woman pregnant i can always just go away and -*BAD WORD*- responsibilities. I won't be accused of murder, merely of being irresponsible. But in a woman's case it looks different, she becomes a murderer. I think laws should be made for both parents at the very least. the father should also be accused of murder. And what about the woman's life? why does it always come second best? And what about vasectomy (spelling)... you'd be denying a lot of "possible" FLO...

Although I understand this position i've always been uneasy with it. I mean i'm not sure what to think about that. Following this line of thought the youger you are the more value you have. A foetus life seems more important than it's mother's... That's where it hurts for my part.

yea, it's possible that a woman wouldn't know after 6 actually. It's very rare because it needs quite a lot of contingency to happen but it's not unheard of. Consider this: A woman gets pregnant at the beginning of her ovulation, or shortly after her period, which is also possible. If she doesn't suffer from nausea and other short term symptome (which are easily !@#$%^&*ociated with gastro-intestinal trouble...like food poisoning, etc.), she'll have to wait for 3 weeks for her next period. then 1 week before trying the test if the period isn't coming. That is if she have reason to belive that she's pregnant. then she can begin the abortion process. That's !@#$%^&*uming she's regular. In case of irregular cycles this can change dramatically. some women can go without period for a month and a half and more. Plus the time it takes to know you're late, plus the time it takes for the administrative process to take its course. Plus anything personal that can go wrong. Furthermore, More often than not, heavy handicaps (mental and/or physical) can't be seen before 5 to 6 months i think. i think it would be tragic to coerce a 19 years girl who just had her first experience to live trhough the trauma of having to raise a heavily impaired baby. that's just an exemple but i'm pretty sure there's a lot such stories.

I saw on the news that Bush just ratified a law which restrict abortion to 14 weeks. I know that pro-life/pro-choice fights are very fierce in US. Can't professionals just use common sense? We also have issues about abortions and our laws might be a little lax regarding it but the woman who needs or wants to be aborted goes through a psycho/social test, her antecedents (drug use, multiple abortions, irresponsibilities, etc) are checked. She's followed before, throuhout and after the abortion. Then she's counciled toward using pills or other contraceptive (as severe as sterilization - so long as she's consenting). Private clinics are available but they're operating with the same pattern. I feel that those new measures goes against women rights and put all the pressure on them. The guy on tv said they would be encouraging adoption and abstinence...i never heard anything about men's responsibilities or women's rights, just protect the babies. It sounded like: Protect the babies, kill the mother thing...and that's quite...going back 50 years and more... hehe, guys, go buy a life insurance on those balls of yours

heh, i asked for impressions, you don't have any to give..well, don't give one. I really don't care. And could give an actual opinion or write about anything apart from turning a topic into another question like: And this is a surprise and deserves an entire topic because...? es but this is also common knowledge and each paper has its own publicized political slant, usually enforced by an editor. And? those kind of posts are such a hitch. anyway, with your posts number...i would expect you to choose which one you like and avoid others.

i agree, silk is great. Go silk!

i agree mad, but the medias will usually relate stories which are fed to them by sources inside politics. If those sources are harnessed adequatly, if someone has connections and "savoir-faire" enough, those news might be corrupted with a purpose. Like for exemple in the David Kelly case... And i'm not naive, i know it's not that simple, if it were i wouldn't be poting here

It means abscence of governement, etc. let's say that if it's not necessarily chaos, it's quite messy.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that anarchy isn't "opposition" to a political body/structure, but an abscence (spelling) of government. If you overthrow a gov, it's a revolution. The time between the coup and the new gov. would be (if social structure are chaotic) anarchy. But this is playing on words

mmh...the point being the medias are manipulated, not that they manipulate And wether or not you agree with Bush (who is a space muppet with too many toys imo) is beside the point of this thread. The question i had in mind is more along the lines of what it means for democracy and for our leaders legitimacy to act. Bush is just a puppet, a convenience for the real powers in US. Just as Saddam was, Pol Pot, Pinochet, etc. but that's another story

off course there won't be any "voted" on anarchy. We will never have a consensus decision on becoming anarchists. That would be beside the point of anarchy itself. but one could imagine a scenario where a gouvernement violently disappear (a coup, a putsh) and where the perpetrator can't take social control over its citizens. If i'm not mistaken anarchy can be understand from more than 1 point of view, the one i just tried to described is one of them. I think that thereS' another one of a more utopian nature where there'S no governement but some sort of solidarity...not sure though.

Although this may true, McAulay was nonetheless a member of parliement. Which was, might i remind you, a Tory one...which means that although it is a form of democraoy, it is one where tradition is legit. That in itself is false, in my opinion. Although pure democracy would be impractible (spelling) nowadays, democracy (as in the people's voice) is still very much in use even if those "people" voices aren't as strong as they used to be. A democracy is only a way to exercise executive power, the structure of which is determined by the people (a cons!@#$%^&*ution), some chooses a republic (with a head of the nation, a president), other chooses a Tory democracy, or a representative democracy where a party have power but vote on a representative. Quite a lot actually...most of europe, US, canada, etc. democracy wasn't done as it is nowadays...but those were still democracies. Try putting bush out of power, or Swcharzie ...:wink: Republics are democracies, only a one of its many incarnations. And representative democracy, or social democracy, or Tory, or pure democracy, have something a republic doesn't have. if you're interested in McAulay's work, here it is: McAulay's work -Bacc

Ever saw "wag the Dog"? it's a movie with DeNiro and Hoffman where 2 marketing/comm pros save the president from scandal by putting together a fake war, thus manipulating the population into forgetting the scandal? I always thought that this comedy was weirdly prescient if somewhat paranoid Well, i was reading an article about our leaders shadows. Those men's jobs are to coordinate the output from the seats of powers (White House, Downing Street, etc). White House current "spin doctor", Karl Rove, is rumored to be the one responsible for the discovered CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Wilson (Plame's husband) was the White House special envoy sent in Nigeria to look into a story of uranium export towrad Irak. Wilson publicly announced that it was "inconsistant", he supposedly was going against his Bosses wish to remain silent. This one out of many such stories. Same story about about Allaster Campbell, Blair personal advisor. he dismissed himself in a hurry after the death of David Kelly. since it is a known facts that TV is the new political arena, those men powers would be vast. Mix it with Internet and an illimited supply of what they call "granular information" on a vast amount of social/ideological group (thus they can "tweak" people at!@#$%^&*ude in almost every circle), they can do pretty much anything they want. Spin Doctors mind tricks what's your thoughts on that? Do you think the ends justify the means? Would you feel betrayed if you knew for a fact that facts have been manipulated? Can something be done about it, or should be? What did it tells us about politics?

uhuh you're stuck up in an unreal world, Aileron... I did go packpacking in very backwater countries...and believe me (even if its a leap of faith), we , as 1st world countires as you'Re putting it, aren't helping...we're forcing a march toward an economy which we perceive as correct and civilized, we are forcing 3rd world (which is only 3rd world because we're thinking it as 3rd worldish...those countries inhabitants doesn't see themselves as 3rd world..., not necessarily anyway) into behavior. It's economical !@#$%^&*imilation. I didn't meant to lecture you about the backpacking line, but i gathered you haven't spent much time outside your country, am i wrong? maybe but then again most people don't travel very far. My point is our analysis of other countries economics and/or inhabitants can be very different than that of its native. In fact, it's almost always the case. Some economy were working just fine; finely balanced, no loss of stock, no overstock. There was enough for everyone, politics were as we know them, more rituals maybe and more ancestral but still, it worked...until we arrived and began to sell land. It happened in US, in New Zealand, in Canada, in Africa, etc. Anyway, i'm 1/2 drunk and very tired...i'll finish it later. ciao.

Anyway, moral complacency, greed, selfishness, individualism, etc. are a product of human behavior not of political systems. I agree with all that'S being said about nowaday people's "moral stance", but the same things could probabbly be said were we to live in a monarchy...

I think this is outdated. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't vote ourselves say a high speed train, free cabled internet, and so on...we voted ouselves laws to prevent that and our form of government being representative, our politicians are supposedly acting on their own in our best interests. That sounded naive but there's also a set of laws and instances that have been put in place to minimize the effect of corruption, incompetence, initiate crime, etc. That's how it works here btw, i'm not sure about US. But if i got it right, US power house is divided in executive and legislative powers so even if the president wanted to give free cookies to every americans and beyond, the congress could vetoed, etc. Lord Babington speaks as if the human nature had been revealed to him in all its intricacies. His ideas on how human morality evolves in a democracy is poetry at best. his views are speculations based on salvaged small time ethics. from bondage to spiritual faith...where the heck does this comes from? from faith to great courage...courage is an effect of but is not restricted to faith...it could be from bondage to great courage, etc...

Again, i don't mean to sound rude but please get your facts straight, or have a reality check...that's not how it works. Or you're living in an altruistic world whereas i'm living in a capitalist world. In either cases, demand/offer law contradict what you're saying. A poor nation is poor because it has nothing to trade atm of the trade or in a relatively near future. Thus, there's no demand for what it has to offer, hence it sells its stocks for nothing. consequently, the richer nation will make good business. Don't tell me the poorer is making cash, it isn't. Maquiladoras are amongt the worst type of factories in the whole world. Wages are "slave-wages", women and children (starting at 4, ending at death) are being abused. Health care isn't adressed, body parts are litteraly flying off the work stations. And a lot of Mexicans just can't afford to cross the borders. Once again, i beg to differ. Here's an exemple: In western Africa (as in a lot of countries) a liter of drinkable water costs 500 CFA (which is basically 1 US $), average daily wage is 0.18 US$, which is more or less 200CFA. Average Monthly income is 35 000 CFA or so (70 US$). Don't go thinking that costs of living being lower means you have "occidental or standard level" accomodations. You really should open up your horizons a little, go backpacking somewhere back country, you could see things very differently in a very short while. In their opinion, we're a cancer. In their opinion we're rich and avaricious, in their opinion we deserve being screwed, in their opinion..well...it's only justice to fly a plane in a tower...Ok, that was extreme, but i just want you to notice how wrong this statement of yours is considering the recent events and the War US is waging on terrorists.

I can't fathom what your sources are but anyway let me explain my point of view a little better: any given culture is an organic structure meaning that it's the sum of all its parts from which it isn't dependant. Hence a poet can die and the culture survive, or the culture may change (will change) and still be the building blocks of a dynamic group of people sharing a consensus of beliefs, which will outlive the individuals sharing it. history. *don't try to read that aloud* As opposed to a (translating from french for lack of better word...) integrated system where each part is co-dependant on each other for the sum to function. If you take out any cathedral corner stone, the cathedral will drop into a heap of trash. This seems to be your point of view from which i beg to differ. History in itself is contradicting you. A culture doesn't need religion to survive even if religion is one of its part. cultures are changing and adapting, eventually religion will disappear from some of them...btw, some culture doesn't have "gods"... As weird as it may seems, I would agree more if you were saying that science sprung from religion. It's not intended as a pun, i'm serious about it. cya-

there's i think quite a difference between 19th century England and present China. Firstly, finance and economics have changed greatly as transportation and comms techs have also mutated. Secondly, 19th century england was living on its colonies, it had, so to speak, no predators. Whereas China still have to "grow" or developped a fairer economy, i don't think (i very much doubt so in fact) that present day investors will accept changes which would mean a decrease in production. I think they will ride the wave and "automate" m!@#$%^&* production, laborers abound and frankly there's nothing showing any improvement in the labor forces. Same as anywhere in fact. Lastly, are you saying it's morally and economically sound to exploit human work force because in a 100 years from now, they'll "grow" out of it? kinda saying; It was ok to use slaves to build ourselves a nice and strong economy because they "grew" out of it in the end?? Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded quite demagogic and well...imperialistic and expansionist. please explain.

I don't mean to be rude but i think you need a reality check about that. A whole lot of 3rd world country are being culturally, economically and spiritually destroyued by globalization which amount to an economical consensus based on an unilateral view of how economy works. Since it's showing a will to "globalize" the market to an entire world it is rather invasive inregards to smaller countries and/or cultures. There are multiple instances where it's been shown that globalization was destructive; New Zealand's Maori, native americans, etc... Ancestral culture are disapearing, minorities are marginalized into submission, self-sustaining economy gives way to m!@#$%^&*-production which is destroying land and ecological systems, etc. It is not helping. Or it benefits only 1/3 of the world.

Sorry to interrupt but you seem to see an analogy between culture and religion, it would be incorrect to picture both being the same thing. Consensus over beliefs doesn't make such beliefs "religious". e.g.: The fact that everyone agrees on the fact that Budweiser is US national beer doesn't make Budweiser a religion . Althouhg religion maybe an important part of any given culture, it is not culture. It is cultural though.

I'd very much like to help but this is beyond me, sorry LW.

off course they preexist christiannity, i meant that we owe our undertsanding and interpretation of virtues to the christian faith/religion... But yea, these virtues predates about any religion but some were not as strictly upholded as in christianity. No offense but..i thought it was obvious And ail, if you mean that any structure/sett of beliefs, which aren't restricted to religious belief, would solidify a nation. Like cultural similarity, social tissue, etc. I agree. So, a culture could be devoid of religious !@#$%^&*ets and still be functionnal? God is dead. ~Nietszche~

i'm just curious, when you say :"Just as pure democracy blabla", may i ask on what grounds? Is it just your personal understanding of what a nation is and need or an actual sociological/anthropological theory? Short of marriage, our civil and criminal justice system and our everyday life is practically devoid of religion...oh we swear a lot but that doesn't count I mean, religion isn't part of our social tissue as it used to be...what makes a nation is something else. sure we still have issue about life after death, abortion, etc...but those hardly counts either. Morally speaking, we still are "tainted" or influenced by virtues that sprang from the christian faith (sharing, not killing, not stealing, respect, blabla) but those aren't use to exact justice. I mean, we won't judge someone's action by the virtues as they're shown by the church but as dictated by the majority. Church and State here are separate. oh and sorry for the bad phrasing.

don't take it as an US critic...i'm not blaming US or Mexico, nor anyone else...who's bribing who doing what to whom is of no particular concern to me, inthis case anyway...it's about capitalism effects. Then again, i'm no economist