>In an age of globalisation should schools still be teaching history with such a heavy focus on national history? Is it right that many of todays children and adults alike can tell you obscure facts about their own national histories and yet don’t have a clue about major global developments?
>An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken or given away from/by the possessor. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supposedly such rights, as indicated by the US Declaration of Independence, which says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This second sentence of the declaration also refers to “self-evident” truths. So a second question is can any truths be self-evident?
>A no-fly zone has now been authorized by the UN, and this starts with the bombing of Libyan air defences i.e. it’s direct military action. Bearing in mind no one is calling for an intervention in Cote d’ivoire, or any other states where the people are calling for the leader to step down, should we be going ahead? And if the no-fly zone fails what then?
Also, since the UN authorisation for a no-fly zone Gaddafi has said that it has declared a ceasefire. Could this change anything?
Also, see this link for more info: http://nickandtheworld.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-gesture-politics-of-a-no-fly-zone/
>Those were the words of Julian Assange of Wikilinks.
“It is not a technology that favours freedom of speech,” he said. “It is not a technology that favours human rights. Rather it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen.”
What do you think?
>Republicans argue that republicanism is the next logical step toward a fully democratic constitution, which answers a number of key issues. The British Pressure Group Republic argues that the “monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.”
They say that it does this is in a variety of ways:
1 – Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties without a vote in Parliament.
2 – The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.
3 – The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch’s power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes – meaning liberties can never be guaranteed.
They say monarchies:
On the other hand those in favour of monarchies say they:
What do you think?
>People are talking about an unprecedented era of democratic freedom and progression in the Middle East, while their opposites are talking about instability and Civil War. Who is right? What are the likely outcomes of these uprisings?
>The following section is quoted from an article by Joan Raymond: “High school can be hell, filled with cruel cliques bent on tormenting their peers. But the queen bees at top of their social heap aren’t the most abusive against their classmates, according to a study published in the February issue of the American Sociological Review. The most popular kids in school — the top 2 percent of a school’s social hierarchy — are actually the least aggressive, along with those at the bottom. It’s the teens just slightly down from the pinnacle of popularity that give their peers a hard time. Researchers from the University of California, Davis, found that adolescents in the top 98th percentile of the school’s social pecking order have an average aggression rate that is 40 percent greater than kids at the top. They also have an aggression rate that is about 30 percent greater than kids at the bottom of the popularity pack. “The more kids crave popularity, the more aggressive they are,” says co-author of the study, Robert Faris, assistant professor of sociology at UC Davis.”
(http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41463106/ns/today-parenting/)
I have often thought that there is an underplayed link between aggression between individual people, and aggression between groups, of whatever size. And if you’re going to look at the causes of aggression and conflict then playground bullying is as good a place as any to start.
The question of what playground bullying can teach us about the causes of conflict is a big one. But the above quote, if applied to wider scale conflicts, would also be very suggestive. Do you think we can extrapolate from such ideas and draw parrallels with inter and intra state conflicts?
>
See this link for more: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/07/prosperity_in_jackboots
>
>This is a belief that nations should intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to pursue liberal objectives. Different people define it in different ways, often depending on how critical they are of it. How critical of it are you? Is there ever a case for intervening in the affairs of others? And if so when should we do it?
Battison's Blog 