>> Site Map >> Forums >> Site Suggestions
Forum module - topics in forum:
Site Suggestions - Suggestions on what the site needs, or doesn't need!
Australiana
Does anyone else besides me want to see an Australiana section?
I was just thinking that seeing as it is Australia Day it would be great to have a section to post poems in besides the Patriotic section. We have American Tragedy(even though every nation has to deal with tragedy, and the USA Govt is responsible for half of that) so why not Australiana?
I'm not trying to pick a fight so please don't take offence, I'm just trying to be fair.
Australiana is unique and I believe it deserves its own place.
Any Aussies out there who agree?
Re: Australiana
I've noticed people are looking at this thread but not voting.
You are allowed to vote 'no' that's why that option is there.
If anyone has taken offence at my comment about the USA Govt please realise that is not a reference to the American people who are just like everybody else on this planet, just trying to live their lives and find some love and happiness. And they have definitely had their share of tragedy in the last few years.
Comments are welcome too, I want to know what you all think, even if you disagree.
I like to think I'm thick skinned enough to take some flack.
Just don't get nasty as there is no need.
I look forward to counting your votes, which ever way they swing.
~Jenny~
Re: Australiana
Well, if there's enough of a demand, it will be supplied (in a best-case scenario).
Annnd, well, you could replace the word 'Australiana' with just about any other word pertaining to a number of other cultures, in which case I guess the addition of one new topic should be met with the addition of all those other cultures that are missing from the list (that must be why the 'patriotic' topic is so all-encompassing).
Just my two cents. I vote 'yes' in the case of adding several 'Australiana-like' topics, but no to just the 'Australiana' one. Removing that American Tragedy one might be a good idea, though...maybe to just "Tragedy," or create subtopics...I'll stop my random brainstorming now.
Re: Australiana
i would be for 'A Country's Tragedies' thread. as for america having one, never really saw the point of that one when other countries have it also.
i am very curious as to what you meant with the concept of the american government causing half the tragedy. do you mean tragedy to the nation itself or all the world nations?
Jennifer
Re: Australiana
I assumed 'tragedy' referred to whatever tragedy involved the american people in any way...but I know how wrong my assumptions can be
This might be a fun thought to debate, I'd love to hear a response myself. (I think I was a bit late in getting here though...)Re: Australiana
Hey it's great to see some opinions here, there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate.
I suppose I can give up on an Australiana if we dropped the American bit. I don't have anything against the US, it's just that tragedy is universal. Maybe a National Tragedy would be a better topic title.
And what did I mean? I apologise if any one takes this the wrong way but the US Govt seems hell bent on controlling the world oil supplies, specifically the Middle East. They have the worlds largest occupational force and they use it. Meanwhile innocents are being killed and petrol prices are getting so high that soon only the financial elite will be able to afford to drive a car. That may not sound like tragedy to you but if you are on a low income, it hits you hard. And that to me is a world tragedy.
As for tragedy on their own soil? My heart goes out to all affected by 9:11 and more recently those hurricanes. Natural disasters come under the category-stuff happens, and it happened pretty hard to Florida. I can't say if the Govt was slow to respond but I have read it authored by Americans on other forums.
I think I'll leave 9:11 alone except to say that witnessing that event on national television left me feeling sick and I cried for those souls. It is something I wish I had never seen.
Re: Australiana
I'd definitely be in favor of renaming the American Tragedy category to the suggested "National Tragedies" or something similar. It's been pointed out a few times that it is simply not equitable to have a US-specific category when there are not similar categories for other countries. I completely agree. I'd also agree that it would be a bit overhwhelming to have something specifically designated for every country... we have soooo many countries represented here (which is, of course, positively wonderful!!!)... so renaming the existing category seems most appropriate to me.
~Snem
(tossing in her two cents)
Re: Australiana
well with the whole australiana thread, it would just be more of a hassel doing tragedy threads for every country out there, and there are over 300? but a countries tragedy, a national tragedy, or world tragedy thread even will be the best. and people can actually put something useful in the description instead of please comment, or i hope you like it. i think possibly made the american tragedy thread after 9/11, maybe after some request.
the US government has always been bent on controlling anything that could affect america. since i know nothing of australias affairs i cannot compare. im certain that any country in europe understands the fact that when there is tension at all, you are wary of the countries around you and what might happen. america has proven in a lot of cases that it will not control everything or anything, if it risks americas best interest. during the early years of the cold war, truman avoided a world war maybe 2-3 times. and let me tell you, americans absolutely hated communists with a passion back then, and we still didnt go insane over erradicating them. communists countries still exist today, and weve had all the time in the world to get rid of them, but as of now america doesnt see that its worth it.
as for america controlling all the middle eastern oil, america has been striving to not be dependent on it. we spend billions on research to help the environment and to innovate new ways to have energy. if we wanted, we could completely take over iraq-make it a colony, a territory, a province, etc-wouldnt that make since if we wanted their oil? but we arent making it a part of our country, and helping them become their own.
we helped west germany become an independent country along with great britain and france, what is the difference here? western germany certainly had a lot of resources and a good economy. (iraq, i dont really see as any sort of bonus for our economy except for the oil, and well that certainly is a limited worth on their part.) even now eastern germany is seen as the drain on germany's economy, because of russia making it so backwards.
america is working with the idea if we can make iraq a democracy, a capitalist nation, and actually practice the ideals of freedom than america will be more safe, it will convert other middle eastern countries to iraqs system, and also diminish more radicalism in the region. the terrorists came all the way over here just to fly some planes into our buildings, dont you think areas like that need some guidance? terrorists came all the way over here to blow up people with their shoes. dont you think nations that bomb the madrid train system and the london transportation system need some guidance? sure its not the nations fault for terrorising other nations, it is the countries' fault for letting it happen.
if the nations cant control such radicalism to begin with, that government isnt fit to live. if you havent noticed-the radicals usually always take over when the government is passive or not strong enough to resist any longer because the radicals became the majority or the most elite. russia fell to bolshevism, italy fell to a totalitarian dictator and fascism, germany fell to a fascist governement, and france fell to the radicals and thus the reign of terror. iraq had a dictator figure in its government--and with most dictatorships only tragedies follow suit and is masked with an economic rise.
stalin did russia a lot of good economically, but he killed 10 million people and above. he killed his own people. how many people has iraqs former dictator killed? how many people died because everyone was too afraid??? it is things like that, that america will not stand for.
we will not stand for countries that exist by ruling with fear, killing opposition, letting the majority live with want, starting conflicts, threatening the wellbeing of the world, and turning your country backwards. any country that is devoted to its foundations, to freedom, and to its safety will ensure it. and if that country has to control other countries to do it, so be it. im sure over 18 million would have wished that someone would have controlled germany, italy, japan, and all the other nations before their deaths ensued, because of appeasement...because of fear and minimizing the threats.
america had/has to deal with 9/11, hurricanes, mudslides, earthquakes, and epedimics of hiv, aids, and obesity. as for the government being slow to respond to the katrina hurricane disaster. the government isnt required to respond. in all actuality people can blame whatever they want (just a bit sarcasim). those people were given advanced warning. the poor could have walked. HUMANS CAN WALK. they do not need cars, they do not need buses. if they dare use an excuse of i couldnt leave- they better not use that excuse unless they are disabled are mothers that are too afraid to travel with their children, are the eldery, and a few other cases. and as for 9/11, it will not be the first time.
and as for america using its rather large occupational force....american soldiers, etc try not to cause civilian deaths. and of course innocents are being killed. innocents get killed even without war. we dont go out of our way to bomb everything any anything. we actually somewhat plan how we use our supplies and men. if all we wanted to do was erradicate iraq of most of its people, im sure the atomic bomb or the hydrogen bomb would be most effective-but again that would hurt americas best interest. killing a lot of innocent people would hurt our interest. we dont go out into the world to make enemies. we go out in the world to stay in it.
Jennifer
(believe it or not isnt all that patriotic) =]
Re: Australiana
Yikes, I wish I could see these replies as soon as they happen!
I think you hit the nail on the head there Jen when you mentioned "America's best interest." Most everything they do appears to be done for those reasons.
*the following may be a bit cynical, and I'll try to keep this short and sweet*
If you're basing your opinion that the US is trying to wean itself off Middle Eastern oil (and the end result implies weaning itself off all oil in general), I think you're falling into the trap of government placebos. President Bush is most definitely run by all those big businesses that support his election campaign, and I'm sure they'd be spinning in their...vats of oil...if they knew Bush really wanted to get the country out of the oil business. The kind of net profit those companies see from their product is just so astronomical they'd be fools to want to give that up. I mean, if people were to actually believe the kind of cacamamie ideas Bush goes up and speaks about in his state of the union (which even touched upon the topic of animal-human hybrids...
) We'd all be flying in hover cars run on switchgrass. It's going to be a long, long time before anyone actually looks at alternate sources of energy, and until that happens, there's little hard evidence to suggest that the United States isnt trying their best to have a monopoly on the oil industry. Wishful thinking just doesn't cut it. That 10 billion dollars is just to shut up all those environmentalists talking against the use of petrol. The oil lobbyists are just going to kill anything that even begins to come to fruition. They're just too strong, and are going up against Bush, who doesn't have any real track record of loving the environment, if Alaska is any proof. Moving on in this rebuttal (which I've looked forward to ever since my political science course ended a few weeks ago at school...
) Jen, you were talking about some common sense in turning Iraq into a colony of the United States. Now, I'm only seventeen years old (turning 18 tomorrow!!! ) and I know that's absolutely impossible for them to pull off without somebody crying 'foul.' If they could do it (this administration), they would. What they've preferred to do (with references to such communist witch-hunts as the United Fruit Co. in Guatemala to ITT's interference in Chile) is lobby their point of view using some sort of excuse of human rights violations and/or communism in order to push their own agenda, which is hidden from public view in favour of those same photogenic human rights violations. After doing this, they change the regimes to ones that they can control (or, in the past, was 'democratic'). That's just as effective as turning them into a colony: Anything you say, still goes. Do you really think any of the reasons pushed by the United States to go to war with Iraq really mattered to them? It may have mattered to the public over time, but really...And when you got the all that talk about "guidance", I think you might want to rephrase that. I mean, look at what those bombers have to work with. They don't have rockets that can infiltrate missile defense systems, or and type of far-travelling ballistics for that matter. Hell, they probably done even have a tank. If they had those things, I'm sure you wouldn't see suicide bombing. You'd see mass bombings from airplanes on random (or accidental, or deliberate accidental) targets. Sound familiar? When you use the word terrorist in any sense, you're going to be hard-pressed to find any definition that properly defines the word and doesn't implicate the United States in some way (believe me, after writing up an essay about the word 'terrorism,' you get to learn a thing or two. The only kind of definitions not implicating the United States...come from Americans. Biased, wouldn't you say?).
Moving right along into that idea that if a nation can't control radicalism, then they're not fit to live, I'm going to have to disagree there, too. Coming back to the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, Arbenz had no chance against a US-backed coup, and yet Guatemala, under his rule, saw the best way of life ever seen there in modern history, and has yet to be matched. In the 3 or so years he was actually in power, you saw the literacy rate higher than ever before, and people in general were doing far better off. The only reason he was kicked out was because Armas and the US had far more power to overthrow him. That doesn't mean his government wasn't fit to live. That means the US is a superpower going up against Guatemala.
Stalin did kill a lot of people all in favour of making the country a powerhouse in the world, and that number does exceed the Nazi's Holocaust, but when speaking about numbers, there's no way Iraq could match those numbers. Of course, people aren't just numbers, and all life is important. But to compare Saddam with Stalin...it's kind of a stretch. If we're comparing the deaths inflicted by Saddam unneccesarily, as well as Stalin, why not toss in the United States for good measure? If they've got nothing under their belt, I'd honestly be shocked. Deeply shocked.
If a country has to control another country to stop them from doing something evil, well sure that sounds fine. But who watches the watchmen? The UN? In all honesty, if the United States does this, the buck stops with the United States. Why doesn't the United States do something about Burma? They've got their major opposition rotting away in jail, because they know if they kill her the cause against them will only escalate. If the United States wants to do this, let me just paraphrase Jon Stewart here: Weapons of Mass destruction, violation of UN Sanctions, and unjust treatment of people. The MAJOR problem is, you cant tell me which country I just named.
I think one of the problems with katrina and all those other natural disasters was in fact a case of crying wolf. I'm sure you had a bunch of people living there who have survived hurricanes and storms before, and didn't believe the hype. There is something to be said for personal responsibility, but if the government didn't need to respond to such a disaster...what good are they? Just because they don't have to doesn't mean they shouldnt. Warning only works to a certain extent, and then the aftermath has to be taken into consideration by the government. I'm so sure the kind of aid they provided for the people after the storm would have been insufficient even if a majority of people heeded the warnings. It was wrong of some of the people to ignore the warnings, but was equally wrong for the government to respond so slowly. Give credit where credit's due.
There's a lot to be said about America's best interest and the agenda of the current administration at the moment. Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated that to "Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth." I think that holds some weight here. The administration could have say whatever they want to the public, but the real reasons are always kept under the rug in favour of the more photgenic reasons to do something. While they may sound sensible, they're still a form of lie in order to reach the same ends. The main problem is, they end up being taken for truth after a while.
Wow, I think this was a bit longer than I had planned. Sorry. As for the "world tragedy" topic, I think that would be best. All we need is a bit of lobbying and I'm sure it could be changed
. If there can be some sort of consensus on the topic, it's got my vote. Happy Groundhog's day everyone! 
Re: Australiana
::rubs hands:: finally a worthy adversary =]
and as for americas best interest, yup i hit the nail on the head with that one. the US is afterall a pretty lazy nation. no need to cause an uproar about just anything, though bush seemed to not get that memo. sure i never really saw the need to have a war with iraq. in the 1950s when the US tried to throw out castro in cuba by causing an uprising with exiles, i think that was a brilliant idea--too bad it doesnt work out brilliantly =] but that has always been my stand with iraq, it is the peoples country--sure you might have to rile them up a bit, but they can get the job done with some aid, they shouldnt need an entirely different country to help them--though the US seems to not think that way. sure they throw out self determination every single presidency it seems, but there hasnt been any presidents that go along with that. as for iraqs government. it did need to end in my opinion. it is good that that government is destroyed, but it shouldnt have been at americas, etc expense.
as for the US trying to wean itself off oil. the people around where i live anyway and probably elsewhere-all that goes around is how high oil is and how there is only a limited supply and something needs to be done about it. some states give incentives for using hybrid cars. also bush has to listen to the tree huggers and environmentalist. they are only growing in numbers. marc, wouldnt you say its hard to stare at the horrors that man does to the earth everyday? bush could do more about trying to wean us off of oil, but i think hes already proven he is never one thats in a hurry. agencies are promoting the ideas of mass transit, walking, etc. and with the oil prices being so high people do have to conform to it. also the double edge sword to that is a lot of americans are afraid to ride mass transit.so even though bush is mostly just doing the bare minimum-it shows he is like any leader and will break their backs for approval. it is now up to the american people to break his back completely on the issue. im sure the US could use the money for something more useful-like teaching kids for a change.
marc, every single time the countries think this world is full of civilized people and there will be no war, no colonization, no change in territories, something changes. after world war one, everyone is like oh we will never have another big war again, and less than 20 years later we had one. the human race has been propelled since its beginnings as it seems to show its superiority to each other, to animals, to the world itself, and etc. in todays world there are still wars-what will change as of now? what changes the fact that countries can still make colonies etc, if the people are willing? surely you have learned, if you give people enough good thoughts, enough food, enough prosperity they will jump at your command. and if any country ever tries to use the excuse oh we are civilized now-all they have to do is look at the people in that country. mothers killing their own children, people burning others houses, etc. humans arent as civilized as we would like to think.
as for the US doing the lets make it democratic to control it more easily. sure we have done it before, but we usually dont end up controlling the country for long with that tactic. anyway- most countries have used "civil" threats and pressures to get what they want from other countries, the US does it all the time. we dont have to convert governments to control them. its like a dictator controlling its people. make them scared enough to do what you want. i believe thats what iran is trying to do with the war now. as for their line of, "we just want to build up our confidence"...that doesnt really suit any logic at all. you have the plans to make it, that is confidence enough. if you ever need it, then you can build it. how civilized governments have become-not at all.
biased yes. japan used suicide bombers and it had the capabilities that you spoke of, but still they used the suicide bombers. and as for the country, if it has enough money to get the pilots a plane, they certainly have enough to work with bombs.
good point about the guatemala government, marc. as for the US completely demolishing it, i think perhaps we should have made him our leader =] but i still think the idea if a country cant control the radicalism, then the government isnt fit to live. but going into more detail about that conflict would be most helpful so that i can therefore either validate my already stated opinion or modify it.
as for the united states having deaths under its belts. i would say we have a lot of them. a lot of useless attempts to get what we want costing lives. old government people in power letting the palm raids, etc commence. the US hasnt really ever had a good history when dealing with the people, but even with such blimishes-the US strives to be better. when we had a POW camp in aliveville, alabama for germans during world war two, a german actually wanted to come back to it to show his wife and family where he was at and so she could meet people like the nice ones he came into contact over here. sure we are very discriminatory, but i would give half the blame to the government from discriminatory practices and half to the people of america. again america worked with the whatever is best for america idea. in hindsight only do we know it was bad. same can be said for lots of instances with governments.
the UN is as useful as the league of nations was, not very. the thing about peace keeping organizations-the countries in them dont want to get involved unless they already are or will soon be anyway. such as in the fact that if canada went to war with russia. the UN would be split as to what to do. the countries would already be thinking about their best interests, and the UN would probably say canada dont do it, russia dont do it-and maybe a few embargos. as for who watches the watchmen-excellent observation. again, the US thrives for good publicity. bush has 50 percent of the country liking him and 50 percent not liking him essentially. the war keeps losing its support. thus-the US is not getting good publicity, and the US and bush will probably try to up the support by changing whats going on. if the US went on a control freak binge-we would be extremely worried-because war could occur. so the US keeps looking out for its best interest. as for burma, havent heard a thing about it. also, thats how the US keeps support-keeping everyone in the dark.
about the hype thing yes, people are stupid like that. and as for the government trying to help the people. before FDR, the people didnt expect the government to care. it was a well isnt that just tough for you policy. FDR changed things, and it is for the better. but the government is more complex about what had to be done then just go okay lets act now. ever heard of thinking? lousiana should have had the entire situation handled up until the point of the landfall. they fell short. the levies were not good enough and all the governments knew about it. youd think lousiana would know about their own levy systems, and know a category five hurricane is bigger than a category three. i think maybe 2-3 days passed before the federal government did anything. why didnt the state government do more beforehand? also you have to understand it is not worth the risk to have everyone involved in the rescue operation die, get injured, or slow down the progression by going in too fast. i certainly wouldnt have wanted to go into hiroshima after the nuclear bomb went off. it would have been hazordous. flooding, high winds, etc are dangerous.
::wonders how the australiana poll got 3 yes votes::
Jennifer
Re: Australiana
Well this is really cool, I'm learning stuff. Thanks Essentially9 and fielding88 for this great debate. I think you are both making some fine points. I don't think I could argue quite as eloquently as the two of you. But I do have something to throw into the mix.
It's been on the news this week that Bush wants to wean Americans off oil. I'm sorry but
2 . There is a thing called the KYOTO Agreement(I may have the spelling wrong) to reduce greenhouse gasses. The American Govt. has refused to sign it. So has the Australian Govt. I am ashamed to say. How can any one who is committed to weaning themselves off excessive oil consumption refuse to sign a pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? That just does not make sense. I'm annoyed at my own Govt. for that. As for the other stuff....Like I said, you have both made some very good points and I don't really feel qualified enough to argue, not that I want to.
You both seem better informed than I, so maybe you could educate me a bit more. I have read recently about massacres in the Congo, 5000 in 3-4years, and not much about any other country jumping in to help. Do you know anything about it? It seems to me that if this is true then the people over there need some help, don't they? Where is it? I don't think they have any oil deposits there, but I do believe they have diamonds. Would that make any difference do you think? I don't think it should. I may be misinformed so I'd like to know what you have to say on the subject from your perspective in America. Hopefully you could enlighten me a little.
Getting back to the threads main theme....I am responsible for one vote in favour of Australiana and I suppose there are a couple of other Aussies who did too. Unless it is a landslide in favour (which I'm not banking on, lol) then I will graciously concede defeat. 50/50 or there abouts doesn't win anything.
Maybe a poll on renaming the American Tragedy topic would be a good idea. I'll wait till the time runs out for this one, I set it for 30 days, and see how things go.
In the mean time, Happy 18th Birthday fielding88! I hope you celebrated in style. I'll be 36
on Sunday. My husband and I are going out to dinner with some friends who also share birthdays this week on Saturday night to an Indian restaurant. I haven't told my husband yet that it is vegetarian 2 . Should be a hoot for us old farts, I just can't party like I used to. 2 2 Anyhoo, that's about it for me for the moment. Have yourselves a great weekend.
~Jenny~
Re: Australiana
Excellent points, OzChick. I had those waiting in the wings in case of emergencies (and my next rebuttal) but...after Jen(E9)'s post, I dont think it would fit anywhere. lol, I think we've found common ground after her post, because I can simply find nothing to solidly argue against (without saying "oh yeah? well my argument can kick your argument's butt anytime, anywhere!"
) The Congo situation is one that the UN has understandably avoided (If I'm correct in stating that the whole dispute involves the hootoo's and tootsies? I'm not sure of the spelling, those were done phonetically). I'm not confident in saying the previous situation that the UN was involved in, but it was the first chance for their UN Peacekeepers to show their stuff, and they failed miserably. The dispute prior to that in the Congo was entered into by the UN and exited with nothing solved. After that kind of fiasco (reminiscent of the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco of the US) there was a very certain chance that the UN could go the way of the League of Nations back before the second World War (and the dinosaurs before them
), in that they were there just for show and had no power. When the Congo problem appeared they didn't want to send in more peacekeeping troops to be humiliated, because if they couldn't fix THAT problem, what good were they to be around in the first place? It was a simple case of 'once burned, twice shy.' While the Kyoto Accord (and I think you're right with the spelling) was a good idea, it was close to impossible to be upheld. I agree with the Accord, but I also agree with the Australian and American Governments in not signing it. The reason for that is because they were honest. Compare that to the Canadian government (which is now run by the ultra-conservative Harper...poor Liberals) who actually SIGNED the treaty way back when, and simply doesnt uphold it. There's a lot to be said for honesty, and while the Canadian government can go around saying "well, you guys aren't environment friendly because you didn't sign the treaty" (not that they do that...) they are worse than those who didn't sign the treaty. The Canadian government is being so two-faced here! They just signed the treaty for show apparently, I mean...that's a lot worse than understanding that you can't expect your economy to make that kind of shift and not sign it (not that anyone gives a hoot about Canadian politics...lol). That contradiction between the US's lack of signature and yet their seeming desire to wean themselves off oil means one of two things: They don't want to, or they don't want to do it with the International Community.
Another important point you brought up takes us back to the Congo situation--They don't have oil. If I heard tomorrow that the United States got up and sent troops over to Congo, I would to 10 sommersaults while holding a stack of books on my head (I dunno...just assume I'd go insane
). If I heard tomorrow that a large oil reserve was found in Congo, however, the agreement would be nul and void . A poll on that American Tragedy thing might work, but itd be great to hear some more feedback about the idea, as usual with every brainstorm. It seems as though that's the bigger problem thats been discovered through this thread. I just hope all this isn't futile and something changes down the line. It's always a downer if a lot is said but little is done (I'm getting deja vu here...is the Canadian Government around!?
) (And thanks for the birthday wishes
appreciate it. Hope that vegetarian Indian food sits well with everyone! )Re: Australiana
well ozzy, with debating every single arguement has its weak points, because there are always more sides to the issue. the better you are at debating the better you mask the weak points. a topic ive thrown around with debating is death. im sure lots of people would say hey thats so terrible for it to happen, but i could argue well it would destroy the earth with so many things that never die and the fact that living forever would certainly get tiring. no social security for sure =].
as for being better informed-i owe it to history class. a lot of things that marc brought up i never even heard of before. the congo incident for example. america really only seems to care about the AIDS problem and animal rights in africa. i think the US and the UN dont want to go into africa because its limited to the congo. its like civil wars, not many countries ever get involved with them-unless they feel threatened or they want to change the governments. with the congo, and africa as a whole, its just not economically sound enough to bother with and reform it.
with the congo having diamonds. the US isnt stupid enough to cause a glut in the market with diamonds because that would send the industry down the toilet in a heartbeat. if the congo had oil, hrm that might be a different story but i dont think it would change things. i think america doesnt look so fondly on africa, because it just seems to be a drain on the entire world. the entire world has to even keep its population from succumbing to a pandemic of AIDS, from starving to death, from killing off all the animals, etc. iraq, has oil and was a ticking time bomb. of course my feelings have been for a while that since the middle east is always in an unrest they sort of balance each other out like europe does. no one wants the other guy to be stronger or too different.
::wonders what will happen with iran and the nuclear mess::
Jennifer
Re: Australiana
oh and as for the kyoto agreement. i agree with you marc.
the US also isnt one that likes being in a whole group of other countries in anything, sort of restricts us in what we can and cannot do. also reduces the bad publicity and criticism if we would become hypocrites with signing it or just anything else that pertains to this theory of mine. i think the US gives off the most pollutants in the air, its not as if we can just change all of that on a dime, and it would cost too much money for us to think its economical. and plus america isnt down with the whole hug trees idea apparently. =]
Jennifer
Re: Australiana
lol amen, jen (hey, that kinda rhymes...
) There's a lot to be said for the Canadian education system(well...kinda). If anybody asked me what Burma was before I took a political science class, I'd have said some type of food. Honestly.
lol, I don't want to pull this thread into the topic of education...but I always point out that I'd hate to be in an American geography class, because I read in the news years ago that one US geo textbook had the equator running though Florida... lol, but that's all I'll say about that. We talked a lot about media and its influence on what is deemed newsworthy, which is a real eye-opener if I do say so myself. History helps a whole lot too, but politics gives you helpful insight on how to formulate the all-important opinion. My information comes from school. Before school, it was my dad, who formulated nothing but purely opinionated gibberish. Now I argue points with him now. He gets shocked because I never used to have an opinion and I'd just say "uh-huh" to everything he said...lol Back on topic...it's true, Africa is one of the many buttholes of the world. I honestly see no reason for anyone to get involved with anything down there, because I know nobody will believe the idea that it should be done "out of the goodness of our hearts." If they found more diamonds in Africa they might just supress them because like Jen said they don't want those things going for a dime a dozen. I'd hide them up in my attic and save them for rainy days
A depressing argument I've heard while debating the whole Africa problem and the AIDS and death, etc. going on there is the fact that it's a type of population control. If they were alive, and we lose farmable land the size of Ireland each year, there's no way we'd all survive. Its sad and incompassionate, but it makes some sense. There's some indifference when it comes to human rights violations, and while it does make sense not sticking your nose in other peoples business, there's gotta be a way to fix some of these problems! Apathy can only work for so long until things turn around on you and you find yourself in some of the same scenarios, if not exactly the same then close (gosh, I had a quote for this argument when a speaker came in one day at school, but I can't remember it even to paraphrase! ).The economy talk really drives countries more than anything else. South Korea is adamant on creating stronger economic ties with North Korea and decide to overlook human rights atrocities in favor of trade. The same is the case for Canada and China, and numerous other countries. It's horrible to think sometimes that the lives of people only matter if there's profit to be had.
And bringing this topic right back...on topic...lol, why not ask Mick about the Tragedy idea or bring it to his attention at least (yes, I'm aware of all the work being done on the site now, but for the sake of discussion...) it couldn't really hurt, could it?
Re: Australiana
lol, well at least they teach politcs in canada. the closest we get is like 2 semesters of american government and let me tell you the three branches get a bit boring. i mean there isnt a need to stress the importance of equal power in a balanced government. the class doesnt stress the fact that each branch has the power to really change things for the government and the people by overriding each other. the supreme court could say its constitution to shoot every second born for instance and it could be enforced. or the supreme court could say the president did something unconstitutional. still there needs to be good people in the system. the branches can come down if something chops down the tree. the people dont even really vote for the president in the end, the electorial college does. people dont seem to understand that they dont have to go with the popular vote.
im happy to say in my books the equator goes through antartica, just kidding =]
im one of those cold heartless people that does believe in disease and war limiting the populations and such and that there is good in them for that reason. if i was in the situation of being in either of those, i wouldnt appreciate it, but we all dont like everything. that is also why ive been prochoice. i dont think kids should be brought into the world when the parents dont want them, and when there is so many kids already without parents, homes, etc. lets take a look at the facts from just a common sense prespective. if no one died of disease or war then the world would probably be destroyed now with so many people or it would be mass chaos.
people are dollar symbols. it was kind of ironic actually when hitler killed off 2/3rds of the jews, because the jews have always been known to be the most hard working and ethical of people. stereotype? yeah, but who really knows how much of one.
i think the coding to change the thread name would be quite simple, mick just has to pop by and have the time.
Jennifer
Re: Australiana
We touched a bit on the American form of government, and it was one of the few instances I noticed a bit of bias on my teacher's part by stating that it's a pretty enviable system of government. If you start comparing governments though, I think he's right. Whether or not two semester's worth of American government is overkill is another story.
I'm pretty sure if you listened hard enough, somewhere, someplace, a child is busy doing a presentation on how the equator runs not only though Antarctica, but most of the continental United States
I have to reluctantly agree that there needs to be various types of population control in place in this world, or else I wouldn't be living the kind of life I'm living. We're all selfish in the end, and to be honest I don't want to change a thing in my way of life. All those special interest groups that we throw money at in a vain attempt to help those Africans just doesn't seem to cut it anymore. Not that it used to in the first place. It seems like such an impossible task, and you never hear anything getting better. I'm sure if someone threw me into some war-torn/aids epidemic society, I might change my opinions, but the opinion I have now is one from a detached point of view, where I have no real reason to try my absolute hardest to help those people. I know how horrible that sounds, but it's the honest truth. The only problem I have with the whole population control talk is HOW they die, which is most always inhumane and unjust (then again, if we go all spiritual for a second it could be debated that it's all karmic...but even I have a hard time swallowing that one).
Prochoice is something I've always agreed with myself, but like many other topics, I've learned not to touch that one with a ten foot pole.
Is the poll idea gone then in favor of asking Mick directly? Or will that still come about? Could help the cause.
(I think I had something else to say, but I completely forget...)
Re: Australiana
the american government gets too much hype. if it was such a good system was does every single country have something different than it and such. the classes never touch on that either. of course i think frances coalition government is weak. your party depends on being with other parties and getting the main votes. and different parties working together just doesnt really work. the republicans and demoncrats here seem to go against everything the other says most of the time. if you are more moderate than you can work with the other party, but america seems to like black and white in any case.
as for the way people die, it gets on my last nerves that peope contest how inhumane capital punishment is. have you ever thought of the cost of keeping a prisoner? you feed them 3 times a day, they get electricity, water, heat, etc. he gets "buddies". he get his supervision. he gets clothes and a bed. and by using the term he i also mean shes as well. they even get some physical activity facilities and such. they also get education. they get telephone time etc. THEY LIVE BETTER THAN POOR PEOPLE! so as you can see keeping up thousands of prisoners in any country takes a whole bunch of money, and why keep thousands of them in jail for the rest of their lives? that makes no sense. as for some of the ways that people are killed in the US (for there are many).
there is the electric chair. now im willing to say that is a bit inhumane because you dont necessarily die the first time and well electric shocks causes seizures etc at such a high voltage. hanging is one of the most humane ways to die because you become unconscious with a snapped neck before you suffocate. target shooting to the heart. they dont miss the mark, instant death. lethal injection isnt so bad. one injection to stop your heart, one to stop your breathing, and i think one just calms you down during the process. i think people should be able to choose if they want to die if they are in pain. people kill their pets all the time to keep it out of pain but low and behold you cant kill a human that wants to die....even when in so much pain.
as for the AIDS sitiuation. ive never had sympathy for any of it. i dont care about having druggies live on the earth when they dont have enough sense to use separate needles. i dont have sympathy of slutty actions. people should get tested instead of pushing it under the rug, because they are ruining other peoples lives that trust them. ::shakeshead:: no need to have such idiocy in the world. in some cases i do have sympathy like when people get blood transfusions, their blood touches with an infected person, etc and they couldnt have helped it. but people have to pay for their consequences.
yeah abortion is a topic that should be touched with a ten foot pole. there is a story i heard in 6th grade- there was a family that was poor and they had so many children already and were pregnant again. they didnt know if they could handle another mouth to feed. there was another family that was completely rich and the mother kept having miscarriages and she didnt know if she wanted to go through with another one. if you were the families which kid would you let live? only one can. apparently the poor kid was da vinci and the rich kid was hitler. shocking isnt it?
might as well as ask mick directly. he doesnt need to read the thread to know that there is enough concensus for a renaming of a topic to a national tragedies thread.
Jennifer
Re: Australiana
OK I'm back. First I will attend to the topic thread. I did ask Mick originally about Australiana some months back and he was very polite of course(Hi Mick if you are watching) and made the same point that we all have made here. There are 300 countries and it is not feasible to have a topic for each one. I pointed out the American Tragedy topic but I did not ask about renaming it. Yes I agree that maybe it is time to ask Mick directly, and most respectfully, if he would consider renaming it to National Tragedy or World Tragedy.
Next the debate. Wow you guys can banter. Fascinating.
On the subject of Africa, nothing has changed there in twenty years. Now I'm going to show my age
2 . I remember when Bob Geldof created Band Aid to raise money for the poor in Africa. I bought both the 7" and 12" vinyl singles of "Do They Know It's Christmas". Bob was in the news again last year because nothing had made any difference like he had envisioned. He even resurrected Band Aid to cut another track for the charity. But again, realistically, it won't change a thing in the long term and not much in the short. As for the AIDS issue? Well now this will cause controversy, so be warned this is not necessarily my belief but, there is a rumour/conspiracy theory going around the world that the American Govt created the virus and released it to the general population in certain parts of Africa as a form of population control. Now I usually love a good conspiracy theory(never missed an episode of the X Files 2 ) But I find this one to be a little hard to swallow, probably because it is so distasteful. Smacks of genocide, which is beyond population control, it's more like world domination. But that aside, poverty, disease and death are facts of life. Yes I believe karma plays a definite part. I don't think many would disagree with the statement that what goes around comes around. What you put out will come back to you. I accept reincarnation and so therefore accept the probability that many if not most of these situations are past life related. This does seem to encourage an apathetic attitude to life but I can not help reacting emotionally to another humans suffering with a desire to help somehow even if it is only in prayer. Where attention goes energy flows, so prayers help theoretically. Doesn't always feel like enough.
Euthanasia is something I wholeheartedly support, I don't understand why any one wouldn't. Well actually I do. Fear. Fear of losing a loved one(like we can ever cheat death), fear of their own deaths(it kind of makes one think about it) and fear that cures could be found for the diseases theses people have therefore nullifying the need to end their suffering. A similar argument is made to dispute the death penalty ie; innocence is proved two minutes after lethal injection, too late an innocent person has died. Therefore euthanasia is illegal and our prisons are becoming overcrowded and murderers live better than many free citizens. Personally I am pro life, but I am also pro freedom of choice. And I think freedom of choice comes first. Euthanasia is acceptable to me, the death penalty is acceptable to me. And so is abortion, not that I think I could ever have one. I certainly won't condemn any one else for it unless they were a serial abortionist, like 3 in 4 years or something I would say get some contraceptive. Honestly in the end it is a woman's personal choice and not always an easy one to make.
Getting back to the KYOTO Agreement, I'm still cheesed at Howard (Australia's PM) I don't like him for a lot of reasons lol at least I know I didn't vote for him. I read a lot about alternative fuels and I can tell you, there are alternatives that Governments are suppressing because they are not profitable enough when compared to combustible fuels and related industries. I refer specifically to Nikolai Tesla's research into free energy fuel. He gave us the AC current that enables us to use electricity safely. Not to be confused with the DC current that was discovered by that other guy. LOL. Tesla invented an electric car that was a success and then he was taken under the wing of General Electric and was never heard of again. This was way back in the early 1900's. (Yet another one of my conspiracy theories
)I just do my bit and recycle as much as possible, drive my car as little as possible and refuse all plastic bags!
Oh and I just thought of something else kind of related, not
2 What do you guys think of the Japanese whaling issue? I think they should 
stop and get the hell out of our waters! Scientific research my foot! 
Well, I will leave it there for now and let you two have some fun with this new information. Until next time, stay happy
~Jenny~
Re: Australiana
ah conspiracy theories are lovely things. have you ever heard of the oj simpson trial jenny? well my old physical therapists husband had a theory that oj simpson did not kill his wife, but his son did and he was covering it up. he also didnt trial to plead im innocent go find the other guy, because he didnt want his son to be looked at too closely. that is why the glove used in the murder didnt fit oj but did his son. also, its been said that the glove was leather and hit some water, and thus shrunk. but nice bedtime story eh?
actually i think the AIDS virus came about because humans and some monkeys sort of got too close to each other... not getting into that, but i think its scientifically proven. in any case, the american government wouldnt cause such a problem in africa, because they know american money will go to africa. cant let that happen =]
i used to believe in karma and reincarnation. i dont really anymore. i do however believe strongly in consequences. so sort of like karma applied to just one lifetime type idea except not supernatural in anyway. if you kill someone youll get killed yourself, get jail time, feel guilty, be paranoid, have insomnia, etc.
as for the abortion issue. i also hate the fact of teenage moms with kids. the teenagers cant even take care of themselves most of the time and cant give the kid all the attention, support, love, ect it needs.
i dont know about the whaling issue. as for japan, i dont really support anything they ever do. the whales need to be left alone no matter what they are doing. im sort of getting sick of zoos having big animals in their habitats as well. i mean alabama has polar bears in one of its zoos. ::shakeshead::
Jennifer