| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2005 12:48:50 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Major developments in investigation of bombing in London
Scotland Yard statement appears to say the bombers were 4 English born and bred men, all of whom died in the attacks. At least three from Leeds in Yorkshire. All 4 travelled to London on thursday morning. Seen at Kings Cross station. Three bodies found, fourth probably still to be uncovered at Kings Cross.
Looks like first suicide bombers in England.
:((((
P |
CNN is now saying that they've arrested someone in connection to this. |
The police raided homes in Leeds this morning and someone from there has been arrested and is being taken to London for questioning but there is no report yet as to why he/she was arrested.
Watching TV BBC report at this moment.
P |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:59:36 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by "Riponlady":
"My ideas:, reduce or abolish the many subsidies by countries, so that the market on cotton, steel, farming, etc is free and will allow some lesser enonomical countries to trade on a level basis." |
Strongly opposed by American farmers. But actually quite a few Americans support such a change.
I want to bounce an idea off you Riponlady, would you allow for the following situation?
"I personally, support the removal of such subsidies on international trade. But do support subsidizing American farms locally. The reason being that the American farms cannot compete cost/production wise with others. However, I do believe that a certain level of internal production must be maintained so as to prevent total dependence on foreign foods.
Essentially, say that Brazil started to provide 90% of America's food imports. If Brazil were to then have a situation of civil unrest or say a natural disaster like a Tsunami. The lack of any food production would cause great turmoil in America...or any other state.
So I would make an allowance for any state to subsidize a level of domestic production in order to maintain farming capabilities but to prohibit such subsidies for export. Furthermore, said subsidies would be for basic foodstuffs. (Wheat, corn, etc.) I think such provisions might allow for more nations to adopt such a policy. Any thoughts, comments Ripon?
"I heard the other day that if the US (not picking on them, only using as an example. England equally protects its trade) took away the subsidy on cotton farming it would improve the trade of African cotton growers by 12%"
I'd support the removal of such as we have a fair amount of cloth store-housed. Enough that we could survive until the next cotton growing season.
A further idea...off of yours...in order to maintain that farming ability. Have the farms that are subsidized - in order to maintain "production" ability in case of emergency - plant and harvest crops for formation to bio-diesel.
"Cotton can't be a major US export, can it?"
Not for about 100 yrs... ;)
A lot of the protections are to maintain the "ability" to produce. Hence I think the use of subsidized "emergency farms" that produce bio-diesel crops but can easily be converted to foodstuff crops in emergencies.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Scotland Yard statement appears to say the bombers were 4 English born and bred men, all of whom died in the attacks. |
Really... :(
I had heard that they thought they were phone detonated. That is sad(er)... |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 01:13:23 PM · #228 |
Saj - I'm thinking and trying to watch news reports - will reply soon.
Looks definitely like suicide bombers. Police have evacuated homes in the communities around addresses in Leeds where they are searching houses of suspect bombers. Also controlled explosions by police at Luton where fourth man's car was found.
P |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 01:29:16 PM · #229 |
| police stating men are of Pakistani origin but refusing to call them Muslims just murderers, asking for no retaliatory action. |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 01:29:22 PM · #230 |
oops
Message edited by author 2005-07-12 13:30:15. |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 02:49:21 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"I personally, support the removal of such subsidies on international trade. But do support subsidizing American farms locally. The reason being that the American farms cannot compete cost/production wise with others. However, I do believe that a certain level of internal production must be maintained so as to prevent total dependence on foreign foods.
Essentially, say that Brazil started to provide 90% of America's food imports. If Brazil were to then have a situation of civil unrest or say a natural disaster like a Tsunami. The lack of any food production would cause great turmoil in America...or any other state.
So I would make an allowance for any state to subsidize a level of domestic production in order to maintain farming capabilities but to prohibit such subsidies for export. Furthermore, said subsidies would be for basic foodstuffs. (Wheat, corn, etc.) I think such provisions might allow for more nations to adopt such a policy. Any thoughts, comments Ripon?
. Have the farms that are subsidized - in order to maintain "production" ability in case of emergency - plant and harvest crops for formation to bio-diesel.
A lot of the protections are to maintain the "ability" to produce. Hence I think the use of subsidized "emergency farms" that produce bio-diesel crops but can easily be converted to foodstuff crops in emergencies.
|
First thoughts - sounds good in theory - what about the world selecting a certain number of commodities
that will not be subsidised for certain countries. eg cocoa, coffee, cotton (!) bananas, . These would be the exports that the underdeveloped countries had as perhaps their only main export while they are just a small part of exports for other countries. For example we (UK) export beef but it is not a major export and we shouldn't subsidise the industry if it is only in production because of any subsidy. If our subsidy maakes it cheaper than a poorer country's exports then subsidy taken away and our economy would not be hit.
Ban subsidies that pay people not to produce at all - happens in `europe!
In US you are probably more able to be self sufficient than UK. Certainly in basic foodstuff. Would it really be a problem feeding your population without imports? You must have the arable farm land!
I'd also like to see bigger companies taxed at home if they use labour abroad. I know they contribute to that country's economy by employing people but the tax could then be returned to those countries to be used to build better opportunities for employment nationally. The company would still make a profit - I don't wnat them to stop usimg the country completely but it would be limited slightly.
Not sure if this would work!
P
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 05:10:52 PM · #232 |
"what about the world selecting a certain number of commodities
that will not be subsidised for certain countries. eg cocoa, coffee, cotton (!) bananas, "
sounds reasonable, though I am sure there will be heated discussions on which commodities...
hence I think applying a limit to "basics" (wheat, corn, meals, basic foodstuffs)
"Ban subsidies that pay people not to produce at all - happens in `europe!"
agreed, such subsidies should go to growing "biodiesel" crops to go into the national oil reserves since it is the national governments (our taxes) paying the money...the crops should come back to us!
"Would it really be a problem feeding your population without imports?"
No, but if we priced out all our farms it would take a year or so to get them re-farming. And a year without food would be devestating. However, keeping some farms operating (even though they can't economically compete with say Mexican tomatoe growers). A certain amount of farms could be used to grow crops for bio-diesel. This would ensure if the need arrived that we'd have functioning farms, with functioning equipment and trained farmers to quickly produce foodstuffs in an emergency. The cost of the government subsidies would be covered by the bio-diesel production. I think it makes sense....what do you think?
"I'd also like to see bigger companies taxed at home if they use labour abroad."
I'd rather see a "scale" implemented. One in which if they paid "over" the standard of living by x factor (so as to raise the regions standard of living by several degrees per year) then the tax would be waived. This would
a) ensure that those poorer nations receive growth and not bring it all back into industrialized nations
b) ensure they are paid simply pennies because they can always replace the laborer, but paid dimes know that the difference won't be too great on our cost but standard of living in the region will increase.
Thoughts? LB? others? |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 05:33:03 PM · #233 |
back to original
Police are saying the bombers are unknowns, clean, in other words had not been targeted by police as possible terrorists. One is said to be only 19 years old. Suggested that they had a leader who may have come into the country, set them up and gave the order to bomb and where and when then left the country before the bombings.
:( |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 05:48:50 AM · #234 |
I am afraid that I have rather few positive comments on the suggestions so far - I feel that the discussion is a little naieve.
On farming subsidies - they are a huge problem as regards poverty, and poverty is a huge influing factor in breeding resentment. However - you hit the nail on the head when you said that we must retain production capacity so that we can be self sufficient. That is the reason why we have farming subsidies: without them, many parts of the Western world (and esp. developed W. Europe) would be driven out of business. W. Europe farmers find it very hard to compete on a level playing field with other countries. As well as retaining production, for nations such as France, with a huge cultural heritage in wine and food, the collapse of the farming economy and the disappearance of famous brands would be a tragedy for French cultural values (and those of us who love French foods).
The debate is being heard already: Bush requires European food subsidies to be relaxed before US subsidies will be relaxed (per G8 conference). The political powerplay is huge. France is digging its heels in to retain subsidies, the UK is digging its heels in to retain a EUR3 billion refund it receives annually from the EU to reflect the inequality of subsidisation utilisation compared to old Europe. The failure to ratify the EU Constitution has set back all attempts to manage the influx of E. European states and rearrange subsidies in this new climate. I see a lot of obstacles to relaxation of subsidies, especially if some nations insist on self sufficiency ideals - I think increased reliance on the rest of the world would be beneficial in several ways, from a trade perspective and because co-reliance is a good step towards a growth of respect for and reliance on other nations. Increased bilateral trade would be a good economic method of reducing the risk of war (what merchant wishes to destroy a trading partner?). It is one of the reasons that we have not seen a war in W. Europe for half a century.
On supra-governmental institutions, I think that the UN does a decent job. Having a bigger parliament style group would work very differently from the smaller UN - the force of the UN is in its relative dynamism, compared to, say, the League of Nations. However, the US does dominate the UN and does often work around it, or in contravention of its orders. I would like to see the UN have more preventative powers - say the power to fine a country, as its only redress, exclusion, is impractical and does not reflect the realities of the situation. But supra-governmental organisations are in principle, a good idea for mediation and for limiting the risk of extreme action (by having to satisfy a panel of countries, moderate responses are encouraged).
On taxation and international taxation treaties - they are so very complex already, and the issues are overwhelming. From a very broad perspective, and at a huge simplification, companies are already taxed "at home" - In theory, the profits of American Airlines generated in the UK flow to the US, are seen on the US stockmarket, and profits are taxed in the US. Subject to a lot of dense tax treaties, and the various companies tax avoidance schemes. In practice, tax will be paid where it can be minimised - or not paid at all where possible. The Bahamas, BVI, Jersey etc are not the centres of big business because of their infrastructure or convenience.
Changing the world is much more subtle than is being suggested here. Policies must be implemented with a life span of 20-30 years, which will encourage a redirection. There are a few big ticket items, such as subsidies, which can be ended. However, a policy such as halving duty on bio-diesel, and susidising conversion costs and the cost if installing infrastructure would encourage the industry. Better than bio-diesel, an electric economy would be less polluting (except at the source of creation of the electricity in the first place).
We have discussed ennergy creation elsewhere. An immediate step that must be carried out is liaison with the far Eastern states and in particular China. Whereas the US is currently the most polluting nation on the planet, China is set to overtake the US in the next couple of years, and its energy demands are set to multiply by a factor of tens in the coming years. To meet that demand, China proposes a series (10+) of coal powered generating stations, the most polluting and inefficient sources of energy creation. A middle range estimate of the impact of pollution on global warming requires us to cut global pollution levels by up to 50% from 1990 levels by 2050, to avoid a more than 2C rise in temperatures by 2100, which is the boundary at which continuance of human civilisation is estimated to become "precarious". A coal powered electricity generating station has a life expectancy of over 50 years.
If we get frustrated with the US now for ignoring the need to recognise and act on climate change, it will be nothing compared to the capacity of China for wreaking havoc on us all. As a precursor to those negotiations, we must be committed to a course of action now that demonstrates a willingness to share the economic cost of choosing clean over dirty energy.
Did not mean to get ona soapbox on climate change - but we must talk to the Far East, India and China on this critical issue. I believe this was another tabled point at G8 (I would not vote for Tony, and disagree with many of his policies, but I think he has acted admirably in his presidency of the G8). Another recognised failing of democratic forms of government is short termism - again, we must guard against it.
I strongly support the idea of greater travel, especially by traditionally insular nations, such as the US - by travelling, one gets a better understanding of different cultures and ways of life (though the hypocrisy is that we do it by one of the most ineffecient and polluting methods of transport ever devised...!). And also, relaxing the controls a little on allowing visitors and medium term visitors in a reciprocal gesture, encouraging more people to enjoy and understand the US culture by direct contact.
As for conscription - I understand the reasons, but conscription is a double edged sword.
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 05:50:52. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 10:04:29 AM · #235 |
"Policies must be implemented with a life span of 20-30 years"
Definitely agree there. I believe the Western world is suffering consequences from it's 5-10 yrs policy stategies. I'd go further and say 40-100 policies are probably necessary for some challenges.
"Better than bio-diesel, an electric economy would be less polluting (except at the source of creation of the electricity in the first place)."
Which could in itself be run on bio-fuels (I used diesel as the most common and probably strongest current economic demand.)
"Did not mean to get ona soapbox on climate change - but we must talk to the Far East, India and China on this critical issue."
Very much agreed.
"Another recognised failing of democratic forms of government is short termism - again, we must guard against it."
Once again, very much agreed, it is what I feel has been done mostly policy wise by the Western world. It is also why I am a big "technology investment" supporter.
"And also, relaxing the controls a little on allowing visitors and medium term visitors in a reciprocal gesture, encouraging more people to enjoy and understand the US culture by direct contact."
I am actually, surprised how many we do get. We see hundreds of au pairs visiting the U.S. for a year or so. The issue, it most always the "middle-class". Not that that's bad to have them but I'd love to allow some poorer regions access to schooling. I find non-american immigrants often make the best students.
"As for conscription - I understand the reasons, but conscription is a double edged sword."
I see it more of a 1-2 year addition to our educational system. You have elementary school, secondary (high) school, and then 1-2 yrs of call it "international service school". The exception being those who choose to enlist (conscript) could waive said service. Perhaps such is too far reaching. Perhaps either the option of college or conscription would allow you to waive those last two educational years. But I think it'd do many Americans great good to have such a system. I think it'd do the world great good as well.
- The Saj
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 10:30:12 AM · #236 |
man, this used to be a great thread full of bitterness and vitriol.
now that you're holding hands and singing "we are the world," this thread lost a lot of its appeal. :P
this may be the first thread to ever get "de-ranted" and moved back into general discussion if this keeps up!
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 10:30:44. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 10:59:17 AM · #237 |
I think changes need to be made in the United States for reducing the influence that the large corporations have on the policies and actions of our government(s). They are undermining our democracy(!) to favor the wants of the corporate aristocracy and upper classes by sacrificing the needs of the lower and middle classes.
US Campaign finance reform, to limit, or greatly reduce corporate influence is greatly needed. Look at the figures for the amount of money that George Bush received in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and you will see that he is catering the policies of his administration to those campaign contributors as those campaign figures are huge and get bigger every year.
The issue of farm subsidies are tied in greatly with campaign contributions and many congress members receive large contributions from big agribussiness, and so are unwilling to vote for campaign finance reform. It is no wonder that farm subsidies have increased to 190 billion dollars under Bush as his campaign received large sums of money from agribusiness interests as well. If you want to assure that the US is secure in being able to produce its own food sources, then we need to be supporting the family owned farm, which has declined in large numbers over the past 50 years in favor of the large oligopolies of big agribusiness. There is much less security in food production when just a handful of companies are producing it. Also, agribusinesses want to take up the nascent technology of genetically altered crops, before adequate research and testing has been done, which require greater numbers of pesticides and insecticides and poisoning our land and water and putting at risk the health of the population of the US, and the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 11:07:15 AM · #238 |
Have no fear, I am here to stir the pot...hold off the on the deranting.
Chaa tooeee...I spit on you all who disagree with my views! lol :)
Originally posted by muckpond:
man, this used to be a great thread full of bitterness and vitriol.
now that you're holding hands and singing "we are the world," this thread lost a lot of its appeal. :P
this may be the first thread to ever get "de-ranted" and moved back into general discussion if this keeps up! |
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 12:49:12 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
man, this used to be a great thread full of bitterness and vitriol.
now that you're holding hands and singing "we are the world," this thread lost a lot of its appeal. :P
this may be the first thread to ever get "de-ranted" and moved back into general discussion if this keeps up! |
Sorry, didn't mean to take your fun away there Muckpond... ;)
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
"I think changes need to be made in the United States for reducing the influence that the large corporations have on the policies and actions of our government(s)." |
I actually have an idea for this. I think there should be "check boxes" on our taxes that allow us to denote where up to 10% of taxes are to be spent. Not all...or you might find complete loss of funds for essentially operations.
But I believe just 10% would allow great influence as to policy. With up to five designations. Essentially, these would become "financial votes" on the part of citizens. Like individual lobby groups.
Example: for myself I'd probably breakdown my 10% allocation like so.
4% NASA/Space Exploration/Advanced Technology Research
2% National Academic Scholarship Fund
2% International Aide
1% Habitat Preservation Fund (purchase of reserve lands)
I believe this ability would help the citizens have more influence over our government. The legislative government would be Constitutionally mandated to allocate those funds to those areas.
"US Campaign finance reform, to limit, or greatly reduce corporate influence is greatly needed."
I believe corporate and private limits should be addressed. In fact, I've often thought with the web, TV, CSPAN, etc. that we could implement a system where all candidates receive an area/platform online to campaign. And would have to promote themselves and their platforms instead of their party. And simply kiss the party system good-bye. But probably not ever going to happen.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 01:36:41 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
man, this used to be a great thread full of bitterness and vitriol.
now that you're holding hands and singing "we are the world," this thread lost a lot of its appeal. :P
this may be the first thread to ever get "de-ranted" and moved back into general discussion if this keeps up! |
Agreed - the Saj has hijacked my rant, and started e-mailing me. And this "let's be nice" discussion has been super-imposed on my rant, when it should have been a new thread. At a bit of a climax as well - now the rest of you will never know theSaj's response to my accusations of fascist tendencies...
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 13:38:58. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 01:40:11 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
(RULES: Please, do not come out against anyone's suggestion as "stupid", the only comments should be "positive" - ie: seeing someone's idea and elaborating on how it may be improved or a pitfall removed.) |
This kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable in a Rant thread. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 02:53:24 PM · #242 |
| I personally feel this "let's be nice" attitude is a governmental conspiracy and coverup of its infiltration of the left. Be afraid...be very afraid and resist at all costs! Cha tooeee |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:13:50 PM · #243 |
I can honestly say this is the first time I have been laughing at the end of a 9 page (for me) political rant.
Now stop it and start arguing! |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:14:58 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
(RULES: Please, do not come out against anyone's suggestion as "stupid", the only comments should be "positive" - ie: seeing someone's idea and elaborating on how it may be improved or a pitfall removed.) |
This kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable in a Rant thread. |
*ROTFL*
Just to indulge you, I've altered the text. (I am one who believes that rules do need to be broken.) I felt most people understood that to be guidelines. It's a free internet (at least outside of China) so no one but moderators can really stop ya... ;)
(SUGGESTED GUIDELINES: Please, try not come out against anyone's suggestion as "stupid", endeavor to make your comments "positive" - ie: seeing someone's idea and elaborating on how it may be improved or a pitfall removed.)
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
I personally feel this "let's be nice" attitude is a governmental conspiracy |
Never said you had to be nice, was just suggesting the provision of solutions. ;)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 07:44:43 PM · #245 |
OK the gloves are off!
Back to vitriol!
All US candidates for president ought to have a limited budget for campaigns and more so the same budget for each one. In this way they would not be able to be controlled as at present by the size of the family inheritance and the corporations they can get to sponsor them!
Legalbeagle remind me - are donations to British political parties limited to a certain amount or is it that they have to be declared? I seem to remember there being limitations in some way. Help! (too tired to research at this time of night!)
Pauline |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 09:24:25 PM · #246 |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 04:23:56 AM · #247 |
Re pitsaman's link!
Please may I point out to non-British friends that "The Sun" is a tabloid rag with a reading age of 10 years necessary to cope with its content! It is sensationalist and relies on semi nude girls on page 3. It is sued fairly regularly.
Just setting the scene in case anyone may think thisis a serious newspaper relating only confirmed facts.
P
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 12:05:52 PM · #248 |
Sadly, it looks like Britain is reacting no better, if not possibly worse than the U.S. :(
Muslims agonize over London bomb attacks
More than 100 revenge attacks - including the alleged beating death of a Pakistani immigrant - have been reported across Britain since the London bombings. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Britons not to judge all Muslims by the acts of those inspired by a "perverted and poisonous misinterpretation" of Islam.
CLICK HERE
Message edited by author 2005-07-14 12:06:34. |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 12:31:12 PM · #249 |
| If Tony Blair wants to show some real leadership regarding these incidents he would propose legislation that would make these lynchings illegal with accompanying severe penalites for the perpetrators. Violence should not be tolerated for any reason. Then again, he would show himself to be a hypocrit that would doom him politically. |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 12:41:42 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If Tony Blair wants to show some real leadership regarding these incidents he would propose legislation that would make these lynchings illegal with accompanying severe penalites for the perpetrators. Violence should not be tolerated for any reason. Then again, he would show himself to be a hypocrit that would doom him politically. |
Olyuzi...
All of those actions are "illegal" and bear severe penalties. It's catching them in the act that is the challenge. Those caught suffer the penalties. But how do you punish the ones that were not caught? were not seen? |
|
