>Is Osama Bin Laden dead?
>See the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm
There has been much discussion on this topic over the last few years. What’s your opinion?
thebigqs
>Is Direct Democracy a feasible possibility?
>Definition according to http://www.dictionary.com: “a form of democracy in which the people as a whole make direct decisions, rather than have those decisions made for them by elected representatives.”
>Do you think your life has more worth/value than that held by others? If not then what stops us signing a donor card and committing suicide?
>Please don’t take this question as advice. It was on the TV show House and I thought it made a good debate.
>Why do Terrorists do what they do?
>
This picture (taken from http://www.fullposter.com)shows the 1998 US embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya. It depicts what we often think of when we think terrorism. But this is something that is going on all around the world, not only targeting the West but many centres of authority around the world.
Some people suggest that few people truly believe terrorists will be granted eternal paradise. They say that if this was true then more people would be doing it and that in fact it is only the young who are fooled. Do you believe this is true? If so then why do those few believe?
And more importantly, if you believed killing others would gain you access into eternal paradise would you do it? If you believed your God wanted you to spread misery would you worship that God?
>Stable or maximum growth?
>
Most economists and politicians argue for growth to be treated as the primary goal. Practically all people agree that growth is desirable. But what sort of growth should it be? Assuming we will always have economic slumps, should we try and stabilise growth so that we don’t suffer huge depressions, or should we just aim to achieve the highest possible rate of growth over a hundred year period?
>New Years Resolutions
>Do you think they’re worthwhile? What resolution did you make if you did, and why?
Do you think it’s slightly pessimistic of us to enter the new year thinking about what went wrong in the last year and that we should turn a whole new leaf? Or do you think New Year’s resolutions are more about minor changes such as not eating so much chocolate?
>Is optimism overrated?
>Barbara Ehreneich recently wrote a book called ‘Bright-Sided’ In it she argued that optimism is infectious, and that it contributed to the current economic recession. She argues that shortly before the crash, in the US in particular, people were starting to hold optimism above the facts i.e. ‘if I believe in it enough it will happen’. She even cites a story in a podcast about someone who is fired because they seemed too pessimistic, asking too many questions about what problems the housing market could bring.
She argues that this one-sided attitude (that optimism is always good and pessimism always bad) has entered general culture. She was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. But when she started displaying pessimism it seems many people thought her response abnormal. People wrote to her saying that she should treat her condition as a positive opportunity to reflect upon her life, embrace spiritualism and generally become happier.
I have to say I’ve noted similar things myself. In fact I took a job as a Sales Manager at the start of the recession. It was a small company and I knew very little about sales. It turned out neither did they. At a senior meeting I was told that despite the then current market trends, they still expected the business to grow on a certain path (I can’t remember by how much). I asked what they based this on and where they expected the sales to come from i.e. what were their biggest market areas in the past. Amazingly, they didn’t really know. I was promised some data but I never got it. So how did they come to their conclusion? Sheer optimism is my guess.
Do you think there was too much optimism prior to the crash? Maybe you think there still is?
>Do you agree with the Big Bang theory?
>The theory of the Big Bang is taken as an accepted fact by science. Yet despite the extravagant theories detailing all the events that happened after it occurred, no one has given any explanation as to what caused it.
The best they can do is keep regressing its after effects until the come to the smallest singularity they can think of, and then stop there.
They neither explain what caused the Big Bang, nor where this incredibly small but incredibly dense first speck of matter from which all others derive, came from.
Secondly, the shape of the universe is postulated to oval-like. But in a vacuum there is no resistance, so any explosion would have travelled outwards in a uniform manner. As such the shape that should be expected to be circular. It would only be oval if the horizontal plane had a magnetic pull or the vertical planes showed resistance in some form.
Do you believe in the Big Bang, and if so how do you reconcile the missing information?
>Where did humans come from?
>Do you believe in evolution and the steady transformation of single celled organisms into complex species like humans? Or do you believe that humans came from Adam, the first human and the one created by God Himself?
If you believe the first then do you think we are related to all other life on the planet, or do you think that more than one tree of life may exist i.e. life started more than once? If you believe the second then do you think God made life from nothing or something? If nothing then how?
>European Appointments
>1. How do we know “the world had responded negatively to appt. of Rompuy and Ashton”? Rob, what did you mean by the statement in your email that “The US has called {them} “Garden gnomes”?
Someone in the US called them that. I doubt if they had any connection with the US govt. More likely Fox News commentators ; the same people who told repeated lies sbout the NHS. They were appointed by the heads of all the member countries.
2. Either way, the right-wing who deny climate change,don’t want international agreements on the climate,or on the economy, or on Bankers’ Bonuses, or crime or immigration, were always going to “slag off” the people appointed. If a “big hitter” had been appointed, this would have been described as politician with massive ego ( eg Blair or Mandelson) taking decisions away from national governments.
Now they have appointed people who will be careful to represent a consensus but will be effective in co-ordination.This is why they were chosen by the elected heads of state from all member countries. They are unknown,simply because the TV and Press refuse to report most of what goes on in Europe.When they do report , it is distorted.
3.There are 2 main reasons why British media keep silent on Europe:-
1aEurope is VERY hostile to allowing one business ( eg Murdoch) to own several media channels. Owners of “Telegraph”, “Mail”, Murdoch etc want freedom to buy and media outlets as they like. And thereby control as much of what we read/watch as they like. Sadly Berlusconi got around this from v early on, but repeats will not be allowed.
1bThe Tories have rendered themselves politically impotent in making the appointments, or in making other Euro-parliament decisions, by deciding to leave the majority centre-right group in the Euro-parliament.
Battison's Blog 