Its probably also a bit ironic given the history of colonization in general. Generally speaking these were not the well off people leaving Europe, and obviously in the case of Australia it was started as a penal colony.
That said I can't talk on any moral high ground as Canada has its own history when it comes to boats coming here (like the MS St. Louis).
Anyways, without any facts or any significant knowledge of the situation I'm not in any position to judge Australia here.
Ah yes, the German passenger ship. I recall that from a long time ago. Forgotten the details.
This annoys me immensely, I mean yes, if they come here we will have to pay for them, at least initially. However, I would solve that with limiting their ability to claim welfare, say for no more then six months, after that, if you haven't found a job and settled in, under our law and doing well in the community, then we can revisit the Visa issue. How much do you think it costs to have them stay in a jail, oh sorry "Detention Center", until they decide to go home. To a country that will probably kill them? We may as well shoot them ourselves.
Well, some basic information, a lot of refugee's try to come here. We have a bit of an issue with it. The previous government, have some moral fibre wasn't rightly sure what to do about it, they tried a few things, striking up deals with Naru and Papua New Guinea to take in the refugees. The new government doesn't really care that much for them, they've ordered the RAN to intercept and tow any ships they find back into international waters. Unfortunately a lot sink when you try to tow them with a bloody destroyer. So a lot have drowned. There was also a rio-Sorry "Disturbance" at the Manus Island jai-Sorry "Detention Center" in which a refugee was bashed and stomped to death, while security watched on... or took part.
So it's really gotten a bit iffy here.
Oh yea, we've also been warned by the U.N. that we are violating a charter we signed concerning human rights and are also violating international law...
"Australia is wilfully blind to the reality that the majority of Sri Lankans arriving by boat are fleeing ongoing human rights abuses and have a pressing need and a right to seek protection. Australia is not only helping to block their escape, but is also sending Sri Lankans back into the hands of the very authorities from which many have fled,” said Ms Howie."
Yay! Go us. >:I
( Can we move to Canada? We're to leftist to stay here. :P )
This annoys me immensely, I mean yes, if they come here we will have to pay for them, at least initially. However, I would solve that with limiting their ability to claim welfare, say for no more then six months, after that, if you haven't found a job and settled in, under our law and doing well in the community, then we can revisit the Visa issue.
Unfortunately the problem here is that if you don't detain them some of them will just go off the grid (illegally remain in the country for 10, 20, 30 years even after their refugee claims have been denied). That certainly has happened in Canada and so because of cases like Raed Jaser and Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad politicians are understandably adverse to addressing these kinds of issues in a way that is more beneficial for refugees.
As I understand it Australia also doesn't have a Bill of Rights or a Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in its constitution. So any protections for refugees can pretty much be rewritten by the current government (with consideration for common law, the existing constitution and the courts obviously). In Canada's case once they step foot on Canadian soil they are protected by our charter (which is difficult to change).
As for the intercepting of boats and such I'm not really in a position to say what another government should do, nor do I know of any specific cases that involve the towing of refugee boats with destroyers at all much less to the point where they have sunk. It seems though that this is an issue that has been a much greater one than in Canada, as I found a link from 2001 of refugees trying to get into Australia by boat (though their boat in this case didn't make it and they were stuck on a Norwegian vessel as a result).
How much do you think it costs to have them stay in a jail, oh sorry "Detention Center", until they decide to go home. To a country that will probably kill them? We may as well shoot them ourselves.
Sorry but when has a conservative party anywhere ever cared about security costs? I say that as a conservative.
This is also something I can't figure out. What do we do with them? They are, for the most part, just human beings looking for a better life. We need a better way to deal with them I just don't know what it is. Whatever you do someone will hate it. They cost us money, tax payers money, they're taking our jobs. Well yes, yes they are. And I have no idea how to fix it, no one does apparently. It's a problem with society as a whole. Not just Australia I think, we need to find a better way.
You would be correct, Australia does not have a bill of rights. That was most likely the biggest consideration that has prevented one being adopted. Very few of these boats make it to the coast but it has happened. No and it's highly unlikely you will, the government has blocked the release of all information regarding "The ongoing operation Sovereign Borders". They're quite happy with the general public not knowing what they're up to. Even leaked information is hard to come by and I've got nothing from people I used to know that are still in the Services either. Most of what we've heard comes from Indonesia.
Ahhh yes I remember that, John Howard was the last Liberal prime minister we had before the Labour party took power again. They are remarkably similar, however Tony Abbott is a bit more extreme. I was amused by his "You picked them up, they are your problem now" attitude. Like a 5 year old.
Sorry but when has a conservative party anywhere ever cared about security costs? I say that as a conservative.
That's a good point! I don't have a problem with Conservatives on the whole, although I'd more class myself as center-left. What I have a problem with is ignoring our international responsibilities and returning the country to a 1950's racists, bigoted, backward, state religious hell hole!
The "best" way to deal with refugees is probably the hardest. Making sure that every country in the world is a pretty secure and decent place to live. My argument has managed to enter cloud cuckoo land in a mere two sentences, nice.
In seriousness though making long-term improvements to diplomatic relations, promoting regional co-operation and arbitration and improving public health and food security reduces the number of refugees. A combination of wealth, security/peace and local political cooperation has meant that there are very few (any?) refugees leaving Europe, whereas up to the Second World War there would have been loads. It's an idealistic and difficult to achieve goal, but a worthy one.
This is not to say that every region should be like Europe, that regime change is necessary to install democratic governments or anything similar. Just promote peace, gradual political change toward tolerance and equality, and improvements in living standards. Simple but hard, and long-term rather than a short-term solution to immediate issues.
That is indeed a massive ask. We currently have the issue that there are a great many dictatorships in power where the people have no other option then to follow that one person where ever he leads. North Korea is the foremost that pops into mind. Even though it's an insignificant portion of the world on the whole it would still be nice to see the entire planet free. Vast swathes of the Middle-East and embroiled in civil war and rampant with terrorists and there really is no way to get rid of them. In all likelihood you'll never be able to talk them down from their position and we've already tried to go in and kill them, that doesn't work that well either.
It makes me sad to see the world in such a state.
But that being said, I'm cynical enough to think that we might never be united as a race. We're to steeped in out petty differences and over fictional lines on a map and over who worships what deity. It would literally take a massive external threat to FORCE us to unite, such as a global Ice Age or an alien invasion.
Beyond that we may well always be divided.
I would love to see something like a world congress, with representatives from every nation on Earth under one leader. Never going to happen except in Sci-fi but still, it is an interesting thought.
I fear you may be right. Depressing isn't it. When I was in high school we discussed this idea at great length and reached pretty much the same conclusion. I wouldn't mean remove the concept of a country, just bring us all together. We had the idea that each country continue to elect it's own government, that governments leader in turn is part of the "Global Committee" along with every other world leader. They in turn elect a President from among their number who leads for a set term and is more responsible for general policy and dispute resolution rather the specifically going "America do this, UK do this".
It was a curious concept, but little more then that.
I fear you may be right, it's in out nature to fight. It forces us to evolve. Look at world war 2, went into it with by planes and steam came out of it with jet's and rockets. I do stand by the easiest way to unite us as a race is to give us a major threat RIGHT NOW that affects us all. If we were going to be exterminated by a race of drooling aliens that all look like Sarah Jessica Parker I can guarantee we'd be working together in a second to avoid death...
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91694-new-baboon/ On world peace. You don't really have to listen to the whole thing, I'm mostly talking about the beginning, but it's a VERY interesting story anyway. What it's saying is that in the 80's 2/3 of people thought we would someday have world peace. Today, 1/10 people think we will have world peace.
I especially like this quote, explaining just how dangerous it is to give Hobby Lobby that much power:
"One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability," he writes. "Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways."
Hey I plan on eventually responding to your last post @Nonnahswriter but I'm busy these days (maybe later on in the week, likely friday)
But one thing I find to be very silly is the idea that preventing people from being forced to do things against their will=giving them power
Don't you think its "giving someone too much power" when you simply give them the ability to force someone (with threat of violence, which is what it is) to give something up against hteir will
I lost interest in the article, which I gave a chance despite being from a partisan (and to be honest quite hacky) website, when it started citing poll numbers. The whole point of civil liberties is that they are not up for vote. Nobody should tell you what religion to practice, who you can marry, what personal beliefs you are allowed to hold, what books you can read or whether or not you can use contraception as you see fit.
The whole point of "rights" is that they are to be ensured... no matter how many people (even 50.01%) may want to take them away.
I have a busy week ahead, but I'll post a more at-length argument on why I support religious liberty and why these mandates violate it at the end of the week most likely. But I would like to leave a little food for thought before I leave: The majority of you seem to agree that public funds should not go toward catholic schools because it violates your religious freedom. I'm 100% in agreement here. Yet somehow when the shoe is on the other foot, no one seems to care about the other person's right to live by their own values free from coercion. Why should one person's right to maintain their system of beliefs more important than another's?
@meagloth I don't think anyone believes in world peace anymore. In the 60's-80's everyone had the hope for a brighter future. Now we live in that future and it's not as bright as it seemed to be. Maybe one day, but there has to be MAJOR sweeping changes before it even becomes a possibility.
@Booinyoureyes@Nonnahswriter I look forward to some more in depth discussion here. I'll do some reading in the mean time. I find it such a distant and weird concept, this "Obamacare". It's totally alien to us. Religious freedom no so much. The state has no place in funding catholic school chaplains. None at all.
@CaloNord I honestly think the future is brighter than you think. People overlook progress because they come to accept it as the way things should be. If you were gay in the 60s you faced social alienation or worse in pretty much every culture, in every region of the world. Things are much different in the States. World hunger was one of the biggest issues in the 1970s, but today is almost an afterthought. People are living longer and healthier. In the States the average lifespan has risen... and we're all fatties! War will always be around as long as people are at odds, but it is far less common place nowadays than in the 60s. Despite the debacle that has been the War on Terror the world is still more peaceful than it was in the 60s or even the 80s. Barriers are being broken down left and right, and people are learning from eachother and spreading the better aspects of their culture now at a higher rate than ever. You can walk down Main Street in my city and see a restaurant serving the native cuisine of a culture from every corner of the grove. Like 15% of my stuff is made in China... and my government doesn't even like their government! Free movement of people and ideas has broken down so many cultural barriers and has led to more harmony. Don't let xenophobes like Tony Abbott fool you, they can't stop the process. Even if you have a bleak view of the world in which people will always be selfish and everyone is out for themselves (I reject this notion) then the truth is still that it is far more self-beneficial to learn from, trade with and befriend people who are different than to try and fight them. You never know... we might even get peace through self interest of all things!
Well said Boo! Well said. I've always been cynical and it's only getting worse as I get older! :P People will eventually learn that it is our differences that make us strong. We survive and thrive because we are different. The skin colour or sexual orientation is irrelevant, I've always thought of people as Human first. Not a Frenchman or an Englishman. Does that make me a cynical hippy? Is that thing?
Every time I hear about the "rights and liberties" of companies I die a little inside. For some reason the US Supreme Court keeps treating companies as if they were people for the purposes of freedoms and it makes me sad. In these situations the companies are not some downtrodden underdog being persecuted. They're almost always trying to foist the beliefs of their founders or board on employees, or worse to avoid a duty of care to them, and the US government helps them under the banner of "religious freedom".
In the case @Nonnahwriter links maybe they need the Wisdom and don't-give-a-****ness of Solomon: "You may avoid paying for employee contraceptives, but only if you have a truly world-beating set of maternity leave and benefits..."
This is what I find so difficult to understand, in Australia you NEVER hear about the rights of companies. No one cares. They are a DISTANT second to people. This is why I'm glad we are much more closely related to the British form of government then the American form. I like being part of the Commonwealth and having a Westminster System of government. People will generally come first. Here for example the opinions of companies have NO bearing on our healthcare system, and in all likelihood never will, and that makes me happy.
If I asked my work to pay for contraceptives my boss would smack me. :P
Hm. South Africa. Not as corrupt as Russia, not as bought as America, (possibly) more financially stable than Greece, fewer human rights abuses than Sudan, and not currently a strong contender for murder capital of the world, what's not to like?
Oh wait, I remember. Our president is a rapist, utterly corrupt, huge mates with Mugabe, and makes us long for the aids-denialist days of the previous president. The government is so ineffectual that companies looking for someone in government to bribe for their own nefarious purposes cannot actually find anyone able to fix them up.
Yeah OK, there are loads of places worse off, and I personally have a lifestyle that's probably the envy of >90% of the world population. Which in fairness most of you probably have as well.
That said, government in general is massively less than it should be. I would probably class myself as an anarchist, except I cannot actually envision a system of anarchy that would prevent the strong from killing/raping/eating the weak. It can be said that governments, for all of their shortcomings, do generally know how to kill off people who try to muscle into their turf.
However, looking to the future, if climate change exceeds some of our expectations, then around a billion people are going to be starving to death in the forseeable future, mostly in Africa and Asia, and the thing about a billion starving people is, even America doesn't have enough bullets to stop them. So anarchy will work just as well as any other political system in this case.
It's nice to live in a country that isn't a contender for Murder Capital of the World. (Honduras has that distinct honour.) It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the rich can't find someone to bribe. Not because they won't take it but because they can't actually get anything done.
Most governments are generally a lot less then they should be. Granted they face massive challenges and have HUGE expectation on their shoulders, you'll never please everyone. But pleasing and looking after the greater percentage would be nice. At the moment our government is placing the burden on the poor. With this new health care co payment Woolworth's has announced they will be giving free blood pressure checks and some basics of health care, because the government won't. How sad is that? Your local shopping center has to pay to give the people basic medical care. Though it's a good marketing idea for them, maybe they'll spend the money here instead, and it's been GREAT publicity.
That's what amuses me, do the rich and powerful honestly think, once the millions begin to starve, that they are just going to sit in their homes drinking chateau Lafite and eating Filets Mignon in sauce Bernaise? There will be mass riots, anarchy, entropy, chaos...
We have: Local Government Then: National assemblies (if you live in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, if you live in Engalnd you can go screw yourself... Ontop of that we have: Westminster... National Government or the UK Government. Ontop of this and should be mentioned as they add to the tax burden we have: The Royals. Who actually do a bit of pomp and generally do work and useful stuff. HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY IS MOI, THE PEASANTRY, SAYING THE ROYALS ARE DOING WORK AND THE POLITICIANS ARE DOING SWEET F.ootball A.ssociation... And then: European crap. Who have taken most of the powers from westminster anyway, thats why you only see stuff about education and power generation (the electrical kind) being banded about by politicians.
Under all those politicians... And I have not even mentioned the courts that are the stuffed pillows thrown on top... We are pretty much suffocated.
You forgot to mention the fact that Westminister is separated into the House of Commons (elected officials) and the House of Lords (unelected, either hereditary nobility or people the monarch has chosen to elevate to that level). The Lords have the power to amend and revise bills passed from the Commonc without being answerable to the electorate.
The existence of this unelected legislatory arm is one of the reasons I'll be voting for Scotland to leave the UK in a couple of months.
Wait wait, Scotland's voting to leave the UK? Becoming an independent country again?
Yeah, the referendum's on September the 18th. Writing's been on the wall ever since we got Devolution in 1997. The difference in ideology between Westminister and Holyrood (Scottish Parliament) is quite marked.
Wow! That I didn't know! Fascinating. So in 1997 you voted to form your own parliment with limited powers and the ability to change taxes in Scottish border but still remaining a part of the United Kingdom? Now it's a vote to leave the United Kingdom and form a fully independent country? What does that mean for the rest of the U.K.? The formation of a Scottish Military? Police, public transport, border protection?
Haven't heard a thing about this way down here in Australia!
O_o You guys have a branch of government completely unelected, choosen by the people that keep the tabloids running, who actually effect the laws and government in your country?! God... The stuff the don't tell you in world geography. That's a whole other issue though.
Wow! That I didn't know! Fascinating. So in 1997 you voted to form your own parliment with limited powers and the ability to change taxes in Scottish border but still remaining a part of the United Kingdom? Now it's a vote to leave the United Kingdom and form a fully independent country? What does that mean for the rest of the U.K.? The formation of a Scottish Military? Police, public transport, border protection?
Haven't heard a thing about this way down here in Australia!
Pretty much. I'm not sure about military matters beyond the fact that one of the key policies is the removal of the Trident Nuclear Defense System from Scottish Waters.
On immigration, I know the SNP are keen to relax border restrictions compared to Westminister, recognising that we need the migrant workers to support the aging population. That might create issues and lead to border controls between Scotland and rUK.
As for what it means for the rest of the UK, I have no real idea. The Scottish Government was able to push for a referendum after the Scottish National Party got a majority at Holyrood. At the moment, I don't believe such a majority exists in Northern Ireland or Wales, so they'll remain part of the UK. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what it means for us, except we have a chance to get out from the antiquated system of government that hasn't quite gotten over the fact it's a shitty little island in the North Sea and not the centre of an Empire anymore.
O_o You guys have a branch of government completely unelected, choosen by the people that keep the tabloids running, who actually effect the laws and government in your country?! God... The stuff the don't tell you in world geography. That's a whole other issue though.
Yep, a hangover from ye olde days when the Monarchy was actually in charge and didn't trust the normal people to govern themselves without oversight from their mates.
@meagloth There are often appointed elements of government or legislature, just look at the US Supreme Court - appointed by the current President with near lifelong terms.
As for Scotland, it's a tricky proposition. No-one likes the current UK government. Thus Independence seems like a popular option. But there's all sorts of odd questions like "can they keep their EU membership?" and "Will they have to change currency?" that hang the entire process and make it a bit dodgy. Most of the Scottish Indepedence movement's economic estimates rely on keeping most of the North Sea gas revenues, which is far from certain. Also much of the gas reserves lie near the Shetland Islands, which see themselves as pretty distinct from Scotland and could conceivably make a bid for their own independence.
One of my friends is furious that Scotland is considering independence, as losing that many Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies will likely condemn the rest of the UK to Conservative governments forevermore. I just see it as fragmenting the collective political bargaining power of the area, when we should arguably be strengthening local ties both within the UK and throughout Europe. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.
@meagloth There are often appointed elements of government or legislature, just look at the US Supreme Court - appointed by the current President with near lifelong terms.
Yes but the president is elected, and his appointment has to be reviewed by congress. I can't say I'm a fan of life long terms though. I guess they can get impeached, but they have F up REAL bad for that to happen.
One of my friends is furious that Scotland is considering independence, as losing that many Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies will likely condemn the rest of the UK to Conservative governments forevermore. I just see it as fragmenting the collective political bargaining power of the area, when we should arguably be strengthening local ties both within the UK and throughout Europe. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.
Your friend needs to check the numbers then. If you subtracted the Scottish seats from pretty much any Westminister election in the last fifty years then the result would be: the same. The only time Labour won an election in the last 40 years was peddling that awful "New Labour" bollocks that ignored their stance on social justice in favour of continuing the Tories work of de-regulating the financial sector and privatising the public sector. Can't complain too much, they did give us a referendum as well.
As for the question of the Pound, of course Scotland will keep it. The question is whether or not the Bank of England will still be the Bank of Last Resort or not, and the answer to that one is beyond my knowledge of politics and economics. (Let's not mention how often me and friends of mine have their current Scottish notes scrutinized or outright refused in England, shall we?)
As for the EU, it's not a question of whether we'll get in; Scottish citizens are already part of the EU. It's a question of whether or not we'll get thrown out once we're independant. I can't see that, in fact if Cameron wins in 2015 and goes ahead with his promised referendum, we might be the only part of the former UK who is in the EU.
Do I feel bad about potentially leavng the UK? Of course! Am I worried? Undoubtedly, but I believe the risk's worth it. Under First Past The Post, political parties only have to play to the seats with marginal majorities. At present, the key marginal seats seem to be in southern England, who seem to respond well to the neroliberal claptrap spouted by politicians who blame immigrants and the unemployed for the state of the country whilst letting the financial sector away with blue murder.
Comments
That said I can't talk on any moral high ground as Canada has its own history when it comes to boats coming here (like the MS St. Louis).
Anyways, without any facts or any significant knowledge of the situation I'm not in any position to judge Australia here.
This annoys me immensely, I mean yes, if they come here we will have to pay for them, at least initially. However, I would solve that with limiting their ability to claim welfare, say for no more then six months, after that, if you haven't found a job and settled in, under our law and doing well in the community, then we can revisit the Visa issue.
How much do you think it costs to have them stay in a jail, oh sorry "Detention Center", until they decide to go home. To a country that will probably kill them? We may as well shoot them ourselves.
Well, some basic information, a lot of refugee's try to come here. We have a bit of an issue with it. The previous government, have some moral fibre wasn't rightly sure what to do about it, they tried a few things, striking up deals with Naru and Papua New Guinea to take in the refugees. The new government doesn't really care that much for them, they've ordered the RAN to intercept and tow any ships they find back into international waters. Unfortunately a lot sink when you try to tow them with a bloody destroyer. So a lot have drowned. There was also a rio-Sorry "Disturbance" at the Manus Island jai-Sorry "Detention Center" in which a refugee was bashed and stomped to death, while security watched on... or took part.
So it's really gotten a bit iffy here.
Oh yea, we've also been warned by the U.N. that we are violating a charter we signed concerning human rights and are also violating international law...
"Australia is wilfully blind to the reality that the majority of Sri Lankans arriving by boat are fleeing ongoing human rights abuses and have a pressing need and a right to seek protection. Australia is not only helping to block their escape, but is also sending Sri Lankans back into the hands of the very authorities from which many have fled,” said Ms Howie."
Yay! Go us. >:I
( Can we move to Canada? We're to leftist to stay here. :P )
As I understand it Australia also doesn't have a Bill of Rights or a Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in its constitution. So any protections for refugees can pretty much be rewritten by the current government (with consideration for common law, the existing constitution and the courts obviously). In Canada's case once they step foot on Canadian soil they are protected by our charter (which is difficult to change).
As for the intercepting of boats and such I'm not really in a position to say what another government should do, nor do I know of any specific cases that involve the towing of refugee boats with destroyers at all much less to the point where they have sunk. It seems though that this is an issue that has been a much greater one than in Canada, as I found a link from 2001 of refugees trying to get into Australia by boat (though their boat in this case didn't make it and they were stuck on a Norwegian vessel as a result).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1511202.stm Sorry but when has a conservative party anywhere ever cared about security costs? I say that as a conservative.
You would be correct, Australia does not have a bill of rights. That was most likely the biggest consideration that has prevented one being adopted. Very few of these boats make it to the coast but it has happened. No and it's highly unlikely you will, the government has blocked the release of all information regarding "The ongoing operation Sovereign Borders". They're quite happy with the general public not knowing what they're up to. Even leaked information is hard to come by and I've got nothing from people I used to know that are still in the Services either. Most of what we've heard comes from Indonesia.
Ahhh yes I remember that, John Howard was the last Liberal prime minister we had before the Labour party took power again. They are remarkably similar, however Tony Abbott is a bit more extreme.
I was amused by his "You picked them up, they are your problem now" attitude. Like a 5 year old. That's a good point! I don't have a problem with Conservatives on the whole, although I'd more class myself as center-left. What I have a problem with is ignoring our international responsibilities and returning the country to a 1950's racists, bigoted, backward, state religious hell hole!
My my, that's a lot of rant there Calo.
In seriousness though making long-term improvements to diplomatic relations, promoting regional co-operation and arbitration and improving public health and food security reduces the number of refugees. A combination of wealth, security/peace and local political cooperation has meant that there are very few (any?) refugees leaving Europe, whereas up to the Second World War there would have been loads. It's an idealistic and difficult to achieve goal, but a worthy one.
This is not to say that every region should be like Europe, that regime change is necessary to install democratic governments or anything similar. Just promote peace, gradual political change toward tolerance and equality, and improvements in living standards. Simple but hard, and long-term rather than a short-term solution to immediate issues.
Vast swathes of the Middle-East and embroiled in civil war and rampant with terrorists and there really is no way to get rid of them. In all likelihood you'll never be able to talk them down from their position and we've already tried to go in and kill them, that doesn't work that well either.
It makes me sad to see the world in such a state.
But that being said, I'm cynical enough to think that we might never be united as a race. We're to steeped in out petty differences and over fictional lines on a map and over who worships what deity. It would literally take a massive external threat to FORCE us to unite, such as a global Ice Age or an alien invasion.
Beyond that we may well always be divided.
I would love to see something like a world congress, with representatives from every nation on Earth under one leader. Never going to happen except in Sci-fi but still, it is an interesting thought.
When I was in high school we discussed this idea at great length and reached pretty much the same conclusion. I wouldn't mean remove the concept of a country, just bring us all together. We had the idea that each country continue to elect it's own government, that governments leader in turn is part of the "Global Committee" along with every other world leader. They in turn elect a President from among their number who leads for a set term and is more responsible for general policy and dispute resolution rather the specifically going "America do this, UK do this".
It was a curious concept, but little more then that.
I fear you may be right, it's in out nature to fight. It forces us to evolve. Look at world war 2, went into it with by planes and steam came out of it with jet's and rockets.
I do stand by the easiest way to unite us as a race is to give us a major threat RIGHT NOW that affects us all.
If we were going to be exterminated by a race of drooling aliens that all look like Sarah Jessica Parker I can guarantee we'd be working together in a second to avoid death...
Obamacare birth control mandate has been CUT
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/huge-day-at-supreme-court-as-hobby-lobby-decision-expected-court-also-could-limit-public-unions.html/
So no more mandatory coverage if the employer doesn't believe in it
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91694-new-baboon/
On world peace. You don't really have to listen to the whole thing, I'm mostly talking about the beginning, but it's a VERY interesting story anyway. What it's saying is that in the 80's 2/3 of people thought we would someday have world peace. Today, 1/10 people think we will have world peace.
Edit: here's an article arguing that it is not a victory for religious freedom. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453598/no-a-win-for-hobby-lobby-is-not-a-win-for-religion/
I especially like this quote, explaining just how dangerous it is to give Hobby Lobby that much power:
"One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability," he writes. "Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways."
But one thing I find to be very silly is the idea that preventing people from being forced to do things against their will=giving them power
Don't you think its "giving someone too much power" when you simply give them the ability to force someone (with threat of violence, which is what it is) to give something up against hteir will
I lost interest in the article, which I gave a chance despite being from a partisan (and to be honest quite hacky) website, when it started citing poll numbers. The whole point of civil liberties is that they are not up for vote. Nobody should tell you what religion to practice, who you can marry, what personal beliefs you are allowed to hold, what books you can read or whether or not you can use contraception as you see fit.
The whole point of "rights" is that they are to be ensured... no matter how many people (even 50.01%) may want to take them away.
I have a busy week ahead, but I'll post a more at-length argument on why I support religious liberty and why these mandates violate it at the end of the week most likely. But I would like to leave a little food for thought before I leave:
The majority of you seem to agree that public funds should not go toward catholic schools because it violates your religious freedom. I'm 100% in agreement here. Yet somehow when the shoe is on the other foot, no one seems to care about the other person's right to live by their own values free from coercion. Why should one person's right to maintain their system of beliefs more important than another's?
@Booinyoureyes @Nonnahswriter I look forward to some more in depth discussion here. I'll do some reading in the mean time. I find it such a distant and weird concept, this "Obamacare". It's totally alien to us.
If you were gay in the 60s you faced social alienation or worse in pretty much every culture, in every region of the world. Things are much different in the States.
World hunger was one of the biggest issues in the 1970s, but today is almost an afterthought.
People are living longer and healthier. In the States the average lifespan has risen... and we're all fatties!
War will always be around as long as people are at odds, but it is far less common place nowadays than in the 60s. Despite the debacle that has been the War on Terror the world is still more peaceful than it was in the 60s or even the 80s.
Barriers are being broken down left and right, and people are learning from eachother and spreading the better aspects of their culture now at a higher rate than ever. You can walk down Main Street in my city and see a restaurant serving the native cuisine of a culture from every corner of the grove. Like 15% of my stuff is made in China... and my government doesn't even like their government!
Free movement of people and ideas has broken down so many cultural barriers and has led to more harmony. Don't let xenophobes like Tony Abbott fool you, they can't stop the process. Even if you have a bleak view of the world in which people will always be selfish and everyone is out for themselves (I reject this notion) then the truth is still that it is far more self-beneficial to learn from, trade with and befriend people who are different than to try and fight them. You never know... we might even get peace through self interest of all things!
I've always been cynical and it's only getting worse as I get older! :P
People will eventually learn that it is our differences that make us strong. We survive and thrive because we are different. The skin colour or sexual orientation is irrelevant, I've always thought of people as Human first. Not a Frenchman or an Englishman.
Does that make me a cynical hippy? Is that thing?
In the case @Nonnahwriter links maybe they need the Wisdom and don't-give-a-****ness of Solomon: "You may avoid paying for employee contraceptives, but only if you have a truly world-beating set of maternity leave and benefits..."
I like being part of the Commonwealth and having a Westminster System of government. People will generally come first.
Here for example the opinions of companies have NO bearing on our healthcare system, and in all likelihood never will, and that makes me happy.
If I asked my work to pay for contraceptives my boss would smack me. :P
Oh wait, I remember. Our president is a rapist, utterly corrupt, huge mates with Mugabe, and makes us long for the aids-denialist days of the previous president. The government is so ineffectual that companies looking for someone in government to bribe for their own nefarious purposes cannot actually find anyone able to fix them up.
Yeah OK, there are loads of places worse off, and I personally have a lifestyle that's probably the envy of >90% of the world population. Which in fairness most of you probably have as well.
That said, government in general is massively less than it should be. I would probably class myself as an anarchist, except I cannot actually envision a system of anarchy that would prevent the strong from killing/raping/eating the weak. It can be said that governments, for all of their shortcomings, do generally know how to kill off people who try to muscle into their turf.
However, looking to the future, if climate change exceeds some of our expectations, then around a billion people are going to be starving to death in the forseeable future, mostly in Africa and Asia, and the thing about a billion starving people is, even America doesn't have enough bullets to stop them. So anarchy will work just as well as any other political system in this case.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the rich can't find someone to bribe. Not because they won't take it but because they can't actually get anything done.
Most governments are generally a lot less then they should be. Granted they face massive challenges and have HUGE expectation on their shoulders, you'll never please everyone. But pleasing and looking after the greater percentage would be nice. At the moment our government is placing the burden on the poor. With this new health care co payment Woolworth's has announced they will be giving free blood pressure checks and some basics of health care, because the government won't. How sad is that? Your local shopping center has to pay to give the people basic medical care. Though it's a good marketing idea for them, maybe they'll spend the money here instead, and it's been GREAT publicity.
That's what amuses me, do the rich and powerful honestly think, once the millions begin to starve, that they are just going to sit in their homes drinking chateau Lafite and eating Filets Mignon in sauce Bernaise? There will be mass riots, anarchy, entropy, chaos...
The existence of this unelected legislatory arm is one of the reasons I'll be voting for Scotland to leave the UK in a couple of months.
The formation of a Scottish Military?
Police, public transport, border protection?
Haven't heard a thing about this way down here in Australia!
You guys have a branch of government completely unelected, choosen by the people that keep the tabloids running, who actually effect the laws and government in your country?!
God... The stuff the don't tell you in world geography. That's a whole other issue though.
On immigration, I know the SNP are keen to relax border restrictions compared to Westminister, recognising that we need the migrant workers to support the aging population. That might create issues and lead to border controls between Scotland and rUK.
As for what it means for the rest of the UK, I have no real idea. The Scottish Government was able to push for a referendum after the Scottish National Party got a majority at Holyrood. At the moment, I don't believe such a majority exists in Northern Ireland or Wales, so they'll remain part of the UK. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what it means for us, except we have a chance to get out from the antiquated system of government that hasn't quite gotten over the fact it's a shitty little island in the North Sea and not the centre of an Empire anymore.
Yep, a hangover from ye olde days when the Monarchy was actually in charge and didn't trust the normal people to govern themselves without oversight from their mates.
As for Scotland, it's a tricky proposition. No-one likes the current UK government. Thus Independence seems like a popular option. But there's all sorts of odd questions like "can they keep their EU membership?" and "Will they have to change currency?" that hang the entire process and make it a bit dodgy. Most of the Scottish Indepedence movement's economic estimates rely on keeping most of the North Sea gas revenues, which is far from certain. Also much of the gas reserves lie near the Shetland Islands, which see themselves as pretty distinct from Scotland and could conceivably make a bid for their own independence.
One of my friends is furious that Scotland is considering independence, as losing that many Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies will likely condemn the rest of the UK to Conservative governments forevermore. I just see it as fragmenting the collective political bargaining power of the area, when we should arguably be strengthening local ties both within the UK and throughout Europe. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.
As for the question of the Pound, of course Scotland will keep it. The question is whether or not the Bank of England will still be the Bank of Last Resort or not, and the answer to that one is beyond my knowledge of politics and economics. (Let's not mention how often me and friends of mine have their current Scottish notes scrutinized or outright refused in England, shall we?)
As for the EU, it's not a question of whether we'll get in; Scottish citizens are already part of the EU. It's a question of whether or not we'll get thrown out once we're independant. I can't see that, in fact if Cameron wins in 2015 and goes ahead with his promised referendum, we might be the only part of the former UK who is in the EU.