China wants to gain sympathy in the Arab world now with tv. The Africans are tired of China, Europe too, Americans laugh about depts toward China and they managed to snub their straw the Australians. This is the Chinese KP in panic.

The foreign intrusion of the Chinese is really a problem. Nobody should mind depts toward the Chinese. The trash nation China could export nice black furniture with nice inlaid work or tea maybe, at least something that makes sence. But their trash isn't worth hard money. Also I made a quick calculation, considering the lifespan of Chinese products. The balance is in favor of the foreign of China. We count with waste collection fees.

gogul: It is even important that he doesn't die too soon, his stupid kids shouldn't inherit his crime empire.

Seems that Silvio Berlusconis villa is build on a phoenician gravesite. In view of the fishy orgies he organises there, this hurts (and he likes this). I'm already irritated when archeologists number skulls on the forehead. Berlusconi wants to insinuate that the Italians (so does the rest of the world) know more than enough that he is moraly broken (I just overdo a little his own words), so what. A worse figure is not around in Europe, and he's proud of that. I mean, Bill Clinton wasn't proud of his story! I think I have to point out that Silvio Berlusconi looks ugly at this place. Well, what matters is that he is a sponsor of the mafia, involved in killings of mafiahunters. Hopefully the old man doesn't die too soon, all the disgusted want to see him locked up (and he likes this).

Bernice: Amazing!

gogul: I would never have thought that Iran was such a beautiful country....I always thought of it as barren for some reason.....thanks for the link.

I opened the web page of the Iran embassy http://www.iranembassy.ch/

There is the link 'Iran map', and there you can find beautiful pictures of the country.
Among others also these: http://www.iranmap.com/iran-photos?album=20 pics of the protests that followed the election

The iranian government must feel so lonely

The company Syngenta is selling fertilizer and deals with seeds (!). Because farmers are insolvent of these yearly unnecessary expenses, Syngenta is starting bartering, seeds against harvest.

The engagement of these companies result in monocultures, which forces farmers to more expenses to cover their needs. Companies like Syngenta provide a food security of somewhere around 60%.

Free and educated farmers reach a food security of over 80%. 100% means that salt or coffee has to get imported, soils and climate always limits the full supply.

The performance of free farmers is bigger as companies like Syngenta whose product marketing in western medias sells their engagement as life saving, green revolution, no more famine.

Farmers are in fact desperate, insolvent, kill them self about the pressure. Mack, CEO of Syngenta doesn't look like he would care about that.

Box on the ear? A valid instrument among adults.

Wasting money on weapons is one obvious thing. Only a little fraction of them would be enough to destroy the whole earth, a enormous waste regardless to reality. Dilutions like these have been constructed in countless areas, and the energy invested to solve the problems within these delutions is a waste of time too, simply destroy it. People who live their normal life don't have to suffer while the world walks from oversizing to real needs. All we need, we have it, what a beautiful world.

What I don't like is that not even greedy tycoons have to suffer. For them it's like having 1000 dishes on the table, allthough a soup, main dish and dessert is all they deserve. Our justice is ineffectve if I comes to these persons, I don't accept this. I am almost inclined to go over to fist law. I swear vilely allready it's awful and I shit and vomit on the institutions.

I think the first thing we have to notice is that all over the world, regardless of which country or culture, there could be free health care for everyone, and enough food for everyone, if we stopped wasting money on weapons.

I noticed that in the US (I might be wrong in this) those who oppose universal health care complain about its cost and those same people said nothing when the likes of Haliburton was overcharging the American public for the war effort. Money wasted in weapons and war is money that is not going to health care or education or more useful things. The $38,000 toilet in some army barracks points to a wasteful war economy and a general lack of concern for what happens to the poor of the world when so much of our money goes into war.

Anybody who says that somebody nearly died in Canada because of the health care system here is just using excuses to undermine the health care system. Living here in Canada I can say that we have one of the best health care systems in the world. It is universally available and everyone, rich or poor, can have excellent care. The big problem here is that when the Canadian version of Reaganomics hit Canada in the 1980s and 1990s, the government cut funding to hospitals. A lot of medical staff lost their jobs and many hospital beds closed down. Now the problem is that those beds need to be restored, and the government is trying to weasel its way out of paying for it. Of course, they have no problem wasting billions in Afghanistan!

Because there are less hospital beds, people have to wait for operations and other medical procedures. I wish those people would go developing countries where being poor means you will never be able to afford an operation at all. If those people who complain received a bill for the actual costs of the operation, they would die of a heart attack. It says something when a $20,000 operation is given to you for only $42 per month. No wonder medical insurers want to avoid the universal health care system like a plague.

(V): Yes. What I ment to say is that Obama might change more in a year with Swiss pharmaceutics as Switzerland was able to in 10 years

gogul: Of course it does.. billions wasted every year, when that money could be in the pockets of the people of America. And as such (knowing that many Americans are generous people) lost to those who have need, whether internal or external.

Also, I support a palliative end. I think about the moment when a doc in white tells me that he can offer me 10 more years. I wish I can die then. Daily work. I move a lot every day, I hope it'll pay off.

(V): Its getting very complex. What's happening in the health branch has global impact. All I care is if my housedocis happy, and he's not yet.

gogul: I cannot understand why certain Republican factions want to keep a health system that is so expensive. Those here are moaning about spending money, yet at the same time supporting a system that if changed would save the USA people so much money and deliver a more comprehensive health system in which (one of the options) everyone working pays a contribution. Also the right (if the UK style is used) to have a private medical insurance is still intact and also that the health companies would have to remember the oath of the health trade and not that of the dollar.

What is the problem with this??

Imsoaddicted: I can't see the videos now. When I complain, I send copies to the press and who it might concern and whom it might interest.

America has a strange paper governance culture. Forget it, its internet age.

If only I could see tv from there. What is about this woman who tells in the living rooms that she almost died because of the Canadian healtcare, and that's why Obamas healthcare challenges have to get stopped. What you really need to stop is the lobbying. It's a theft the courrent system, who wants to keep that theft alive? It's a theft here, the medication is much too expensive. Look, if I see a republican saying that health insurance is not nessessary, all we need if affordable healthcare (docs, hospitals, therapies, dents), now that would be interesting. But they seem to want both, no health security and expensive healthcare.
Spots like the mentioned are forbidden here.

Übergeek 바둑이: Thanks for your elaborations. I want to underline that i don't condemn republicanism, not at all. I just don't see any. Take no matter what. Trickle down, if you talk about trickling, you talk about drops, right? And the dimension of treason is all the water you can think of for the elite, and drops for the rest. This is a treason to the republican idea, I want to see them educate (well, that is definitly not what todays republicans are able to, younger people), there is enough room for everyone to swim in the ponds.

Übergeek 바둑이: So basically if the Republican party were to be as it was, it'd have to drop it's radical approach. Also that the progressive movement within Democrats is of a Republican origin!!

Strange old world!

Artful Dodger: Which ideas in particular are too radical? Most things are not new in politics, just revamped.

And if I may say so, a problem with politics is such that it is a race to be in power rather then service of the people. I see that your gov suffers from a problem like ours. Transparency.

gogul:

> Republicanism is a social movement. The Republicans, a party of traitors.

I think that passing a simple condemnation of right wing republicanism is rather unfair. While I disagree with many of the things that Republicans (or Conservatives here in Canada and England) stand for, their place in history is different from what many people think. While the "neoconservatives" under George W. Bush are seen in a very negative light outside of the US, the history of the Republican Party is very interesting.

Back in the mid-19th century the Unites States had 3 political parties, and those were divided into factions:

The Whigs were a political party that followed the ideas of John Quincy Admas and they favored the modernization of industry and the banking system. Abraham Lincoln joined this party in 1832 and in 1837 he started campaigning against slavery.

The Republicans were divided into two camps. The "radical REpublicans" believed in agressive modernization of industry and in punishing the souther states harshly in accounts of slavery and the civil war. The "moderate Republicans" believed in a more lenient approach with the south and work to end slavery by reconstruction after the civil war.

The Democrats were divided into the "northern democrats" who favored an end of slavery but who refused to support war against the Confederacy. The "southern democrats" were the dominant political party in the south and they campaigned and fought to keep slavery alive.

Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and in 1861 he assumed office as the 16th president of the United States. Abraham Lincoln was extremely influential in the early development of the Republican Party and the ideological basis that led to the end of slavery. Abraham Lincoln also opposed the Mexican-American War and he saw that war as illegal and a form to grab land from Mexico through military expansion.

Lincoln's brilliance as a politician was based on his ability to reconcile several aspects of American politics at the time. He convinced the northern Democrats to stay out of the war, while he held off the aggressive radical Republicans who wanted the south crushed mercilessly. At the same time he moved popular support towards the moderate Republicans who wanted modernization and an end to slavery without crushing the south. As a Republican, Abraham Lincoln was without question the most brilliant politician the US had in the second half of the 19th century.

After the war the Republican party led reconstruction efforts and fought off the Ku Klux Klan which at the time had broad support through the south. The Republican Party came to dominate American politics through the second half of the 19th century.

It is very interesting because in the 19th century the southern states were dominated by the Democrats, while in more recent times the Republicans attract much of the vote in that part of the US.

The change in Republican politics started at around the time of Theodore Roosevelt. He had been Secretary of the Navy during the Spanish-American War and the expansion of American power into places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillippines and Panama gave him a view of the world in which American naval superiority was the best way to ensure that American political and economic interests were protected outside the US. It is out of his ideological stance that the Republican Party changed its main ideological basis from the 19th century moderates to the more radical views that we see today in the "neoconservatives".

During Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901-1909) there was a change in the Democrats too. Many of the "progressives" inside the Republican party defected to the democratic party in view of the rise in more radical Republicanism. This led to the defeat of the Republicans in 1912 when Woodrow Wilson became president under the Democrat Ticket.

As you can see, the Republicans were never quite the same way we see them today. Neither were the Democrats. The Republicans were moderate and became radical. The Democrats were reactionary and became progressive.

(V): The point is that now that his ideas are coming to light, they are falling out of favor with the American people. People that mattered in the election of Obama are now having second thoughts. If the trend keeps up, there will be a shake up in Washington in 2010. And in 2012 the Republicans will regain the White House. These ideas are too radical for the American people. Except those on the far left who love his ideas.

Republicanism is a social movement. The Republicans, a party of traitors.

Obama is just a representative of the US, more or less powerless, exept if it's his choice to stress the world.

Nevadas goldrush. What a mess. They even dare to argue tha new techniologies for a better environmet need gold. You allow suck a joke? Gold is recyclable. Take a look at the fingerring of your lady.

AliforniaCalifornia with the reputation of everything is fine.


For 2.5 % of the residents.

Artful Dodger: Arni is not welcome in Austria anymore. Keep this opportunist where he is.

Governments care about their elites. Fine. I govern the homeless. Laugh at the elite.

gogul: Well I don't care. I loved my times as homeless.

Now that banks are paying back their credits, is Obama thinking about homeless people now?

The biggest problem with every goverment is that they are not decent and full of thieves. Funny that governments ask for respect where none is deserved. What makes a Nicolas Sarcozy think that he deserves respect for example? Is it because he was strong in hiding french money in switzerland? Remember when this joke (Sarcozy) got angry because a reasonable person from the people refused to shake his hand? Well, Sarcozy is criminal enough to be put to jail till the end of his days.

Übergeek 바둑이: Tony Blair made Saddam's threat capability out to be worse than it was to parliament. That's the only way the war was passed.

And yes... Millions marched in peaceful protest regarding the war. We didn't want our troops fighting in a war that just didn't make sense as to the reasons being forwarded by our government.

Czuch: The USA borrowed so much from others in terms of it's set up and constitution I would have to disagree. You still use 'governors'.. Isn't that a spin off from British Colonial rule of the Americas?? Your founders borrowed many ideas of how to govern from forms of democracy past and present... eg .. republic.

I cannot agree unless you show that as such in it's forming the USA is unique.

Even your science... look back at when the hydrogen fuel cell was invented!!

Artful Dodger: Details are in essence never fully known till someone gets into office Art. You know that by nature of information that is at hand to a person running for office who is not in office. That's why the Pres in gets to inform the Pres coming in.

Czuch:

> You make it sound like just having been voted in with a simple low majority
> gives him a blank check to do whatever he pleases, and we should know
> what to expect based on promises, no questions asked?

Every democracy suffers from the same problem. People elect a president (or prime minister or whatever) and once they assume office they do whatever they want. Election promises are often good only for a short time, and once the election is over things change. The "will of the people" counts only for as long as it is politically or economically convenient to those in power.

For this reason I see democracy as a process in which people vote to chose their dictator. There are three main differences between modern democracy and traditional dictatorship.

The first is that the dictator does not have absolute power. He must convince those that oppose him that his ideas are sound and viable. That is the point of congress, senate, parliament, etc.

Second, the dictator is not there forever but only for as long as he can be reelected. In some countries people curtail the length of the dictators stay in powere even more than in the US. For example, many Latin American countries do not allow reelection at all. Others, like Canada, allow as many reelections as possible as long as the political party in power obeys constitutional law.

Third, the dictator must at least pretend to make an effort to follow the people's will and avoid oppressing the people. The dictator does not have to follow the will of the people and more often than not external influences from wealthy and powerful individuals count more. (For example, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc.)

Modern democracy is at best a crude attempt to solve a very old problem. How do you give people power and say in the government without removing all power from the rich and powerful? Modern democracy was born in Europe after the French Revolution, as a response to the people demanding a say in the government and going into revolution if their demands were not met.

The war in Iraq was not imposed or shoved down the throat of the American people. Just before the war 64% of the American public supported the war, and George W. Bush had an approval rating of 82%, the highest in American history.

However, the war was imposed on the people of the UK. Over there over 80% of the population opposed the war. With under 20% support, Tony Blair's decision to go to war was entirely dictatorial.

In Canada 80% of the people opposed the war and Jean Chretien (the prime minister) refused to go to war. The Bush administration criticized him greatly, but he was merely following the will of the Canadian people.

As we can see, democracy is an imperfect system. A lot of people will dislike Obama now, but his actions are not different from those of many other presidents and prime ministers, both in and outside of the US. People who oppose him will feel he is imposing his will, but then many people felt the same way during the Bush administration.

(V): I get your point... I do remember saying that since our representatives voted for the war in Iraq etc.... now support it... blah blah blah.... so thats what you are trying to say, I get it.

I dont think that war was "crammed down our throats" but some would disagree....


I still believe that history will bear out the good a right of the Iraq war, and the wrong of a more socialist US


I can say this... the old "everyone else is doing it" argument, that one just doesnt sit right with me

I dont think the US got to where it got, so far and so fast, following the crowd

(V):  Not true.   The details were never fully known.  Like most presidents, he's already broken many promises. 

Czuch: Thing is.. many country's in the western world, etc are doing the same.

If it was such a bad idea, why are all these governments doing it?

No questions asked.... Please.. it is our right to ask questions, governments are supposed to be accountable to the people... even if they try and be above the law.

(that's a joke at a recent Parliament decision )

Now. Being in the position where your Pres is not republican and you are questioning him. How do you now stand on not questioning your Pres and that he is always right?

(V): Heres the thing.... to get elected, he got a majority, but to get his initiatives passed, he needs to convince more people, many who did not vote for him, not to mention, those who voted for him based on one or two issues... IE, many black voters voted for him simply for the sake of electing the first black man.... now he has to convince them to support certain actions, and some of the tactics used for this include "shoving them down our throat". For example, telling us there is an crisis or emergency, and that any inaction will only make things worse. Most people were signing legislation without even reading it, the same with global warming, some big tipping point where it will be too late if we dont support drastic measures straight away.


If food is appetizing, and tasty, it doesnt need to be crammed down ones throat to get them to eat it... same with good policy, if it is good legislation, then a few days or weeks to actually read it couldnt hurt then?


You make it sound like just having been voted in with a simple low majority gives him a blank check to do whatever he pleases, and we should know what to expect based on promises, no questions asked?

Artful Dodger: But didn't the people of the USA know before hand what your Pres's plans were, and as such "shoving" is not true as they elected him knowing his ideas?

Ferris Bueller:  Glen Beck is one of few that is making sense of the mess that the democrats are shoving down the throats of people in the US.  Rush is far more radical than either Beck or O'Reilly.  O'Reilly shouts a bit but for the most part his views are sensible.

It is 'old tabacco' saying that intel' co-work didn't work during the Bush-Administration. Now, who did let the Bushies walk into the trap? The thesis that the 9/11-terrorists were hosted by sombody able to 'shroud' them to the disabled US-intel, it's possible.

Model: - The CIA is knocked out allready. -Saudis talk out (intellike), look, our black sheep is puting things togheter, looks like a massive thing. -Agents confirm at place. -Computerspecialists get gained for the shield. -The Bushadministration is indeed surprised. -Now, after 9/11, it's up to the character of Bush and co.

Most countries have offices where problems of this kind can be reported. Once reported these offices should move social workers or this kind, but they don't do nothing and let this happen. Send emails to these offices if you see bulling happening in your country. I know a lot of offices which only serve to place lazy boys and girls from the upper class.

Imsoaddicted: Some may live in the "better than the Jones age" but not all. And quite frankly, I feel much (from what I've seen/heard) does not extend from that but from pure frustration of the bullies. Getting attention can give rise to some strange and unfortunate disturbances.

(V): it may be not acceptable but it still goes on

children can be very cruel to each other esp now we live in the must be better than the Jones age

Ferris Bueller: Some states! Here at school there is a country wide ban. It is not acceptable. Also the rules (due to incidents) do extend into the realm of the internet, yet such rules were already there in some respects re the ban on internet stalking and other cyber crimes. Such as spreading hate and 'isms to which several people have found themselves before the beak.

Übergeek 바둑이:  Bullying is a big problem in the US.  Some states have passed laws against it.  Emails & online behavior can be included in the evidence.  I don't know who much it is being enforced & how effective they are.  But, u are correct, it's important for parents to be in touch w/ their kids behavior - both online or off.