>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.”
>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.”
>
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?
>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?
>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?
>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.
>See this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an55wU0-kAE
Do you think he was a war criminal? Do you think the lives lost in the Iraqi war were “wasted” (words of the news reporter)?
>There’s a lot of disagreement on whether climate change is occuring and what’s really at fault. Do you think climate change is really ocuring, and if so to what extent is it our (people’s) fault?
>Most of us love television. Most people spend a hell of a lot of time watching it. But is it good for us?
Bhutan’s ruler nobly declared in 1972 that he would lead the nation based not on ideas of advancement and monetary growth but on happiness. On the whole this does seem to have made people more happy, even if only through providing people re-assurance that their government is trying to help them. But in 1999 it was decided that television would help people become more happy. And so Bhutan became the last nation on Earth to recieve television. What happened next?
One year later crime and suicide had surged. In April 2002 the country experienced a crime wave like no other it had ever faced. The non corrupt culture that Bhutanese had been so proud of erroded seemingly over night. In a country where drugs grow more commonly than grass drug use had never been a problem before television. Yet on April 16th 2002 Dorje, a 37-year-old truck driver, bludgeoned his wife to death after she discovered he was addicted to heroin. Stories like this would have seemed completely out of place in 1998, where the Budhist culture discourages killing anything, even insects. Have the Bhutanese experienced a culture shock and difficulties coping with change? Or is television really at fault as many Bhutanese believe?
>The Chagos Islanders numbered more than 2000 people when between 1967 and 1971 they were forcibly removed by the British Government to make way for a joint UK-US military base. Funds were designated to allow rehousing in Mauritius but in reality the people never saw much of the money and were forced to live in slums. Many committed suicide. But those who remain are still refused the right to return.
Since 2000 a series of legal attempts have been made to allow the Chagossians the right to return or at least further compensation. In 2003 and 2004 the High Court repeatedly found in favour of the Chagossians and it was only by Royal Decree that the UK government was able to overturn the decision. In 2007 a new attempt was made, with the courts once more fighting the government. On the 23rd of May 2007 the Court of Appeal said that the methods used to stop Chagos families returning to their homes were “unlawful” and an “abuse of power”. Yet the House Of Lords still vetoed the rights of the Chagossians in 2008.
I find this disgusting. Don’t you?
>Sean wrote quite a bit so most is on comments but here’s the start:
Recently it has come to light that Tiger had an affair and his Swedish wife went viking on him and attacked his car with a golf club, causing him to crash. The media has run with this as its top story in most instances.