The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:42 AM

Without being flippant, Stigweard, please see above.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 04:25 AM

"but I still maintain that, learning from the past, immigration controls should now be increased the world over"

What examples from the past would you use to illustrate this point? Please be specific or your argument is invalid.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 04:09 AM

But, if ideally the law of the land and the culture of the land are closely linked, what would you do, Don?..have different laws for different cultures living within the same land? I know there is for Aboriginal Australians, e.g., which I agree with - but I still maintain that, learning from the past, immigration controls should now be increased the world over.

Further, as it's nearly time to reflect on the Olympics...

Poem 143 of 230: OLYMPICS OR GLOBALISATION?

Largely, I'd say, an Olympic Games is
    One nation's way v. other nations
During fairly-fought sport competitions -
    "Citius, altius, fortius."

So if all states become multicultural
    Or humans become culturally one -
Through settlement and globalisation -
    Holding Olympics would then be null.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:33 PM

IMHO, trying to solve strife in the world by isolating each individual ethnic group into its own restricted compound (ghetto) is neither possible nor desirable.

As it is, people are just going to have to bloody-well learn how to get along.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:29 AM

Frankly, I didn't know about the latest, 2006, coup in Fiji, FT - but the reasoning seems to be the same as the earlier ones. Indian Fijians have now outnumbered Melanesian Fijians and, via democracy, achieved postitions of power (voting for their own), which leads to coups, via Melanesians in the military, and the continued ill-feeling/ethnic conflict that I noticed during my visit in the 90s.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 06:43 PM

"Dictators love getting a chance to sound off and vote in any forum like the U.N. They enjoy it. They just don't feel inclined to be bound by the results of such a vote if it doesn't go their way... ;-)"

Fiji refused to attend the latest 'big hats of the South Pacific' boozeup - Fiji had a coup and had promised they would have elections by now, which they haven't...

Point proved.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 02:17 PM

Come on, no anser for me? If it is a good idea, shouldn't we know more about it?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:25 AM

That information minister was great.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 06:01 AM

Comical Ali was the Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf - see Here for more.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,stu
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:49 AM

Ali Hassan al-Majid ("Chemical Ali"), ex-Baath leader in northern Iraq, was sentenced to death for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity

stu

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 03:55 AM

Well, as said, KB, the UN would have to become stronger/more democratic, such that individual nations did not over-ride it's decisions. And further to "Like Bush when he failed to get the U.N. Security Council's approval to invade Iraq in 2003."..(LH)...when that chap (perhaps Iraq's Minister for Defence?) nicknamed "Comic Ali" kept answering "no" regarding weapons that could reach other nations, he WAS saying the truth (whilst joking about other things, such as his side's chances). And that was given by the US and UK as a major reason for invasion. (Does anyone know what became of him, by the way?). And still further...

Poem 41 of 230: EVEN AFTER LINCOLN, STEINBECK, AND KING

Written at a public toilet by the
    Statue of Liberty:
"What of Equality, Fraternity;
    And Democracy!?"

The U.S.A. has aided dictators -
    Right-Wing leaders, of course;
So some's bestowal of democracy
    Is hypocrisy.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:37 PM

For the record, WAV, some of your ideas sound just fine to me, some others fail to enthuse me.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

OK, now that we have cleared that up.

WAV, what makes you think the UN would be able to enforce the provisions you have outlined in your ideas about how the world ought to be?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

I'm not saying it would work. ;-) I'm saying they would enjoy participating in the excercise.

Bodies like the U.N. can only work if they have the collective authority (and the military muscle) to enforce their decisions...and if their decisions are wise ones in a general sense.

The victors at the end of WWII created the U.N. to represent their own selfish interests, NOT to free the world. They set up the Security Council with that idea in mind. Then they had a falling out amongst themselves, and that led to the Cold War.

It has all been an exercise in grandiose self-interest on the part of a few powerful nations, and at the expense of the rest.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:12 PM

They just don't feel inclined to be bound by the results of such a vote if it doesn't go their way... ;-)

Exactly, which is one reason it wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:05 PM

Dictators love getting a chance to sound off and vote in any forum like the U.N. They enjoy it. They just don't feel inclined to be bound by the results of such a vote if it doesn't go their way... ;-)

Like Bush when he failed to get the U.N. Security Council's approval to invade Iraq in 2003.

I say Bush because Bush is a temporary semi-Constitutional dictator. (unless he declares martial law and stops the next election from happening...in that case he would become a fullblown all-out dictator)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:57 PM

No, being a true partner means that you use your vote the way it is meant to be used. Dictators would still want a vote, to make sure nobody can push them around.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:11 PM

Both.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:10 PM

It makes no difference, KB, whether or not a smaller country has democracy within its own borders...it would still want an equal voice and an equal vote alongside other countries in an organization like the U.N. if it could get them.

I don't think it's that simple. Some of your basic dictator types don't want to have to do anything in any way differently than what they want. Participating in as a true partner in a democratic UN would not be easy for some folks of that stripe.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

It makes no difference, KB, whether or not a smaller country has democracy within its own borders...it would still want an equal voice and an equal vote alongside other countries in an organization like the U.N. if it could get them.

No one wants his OWN freedom and voice to be restricted, regardless of how he treats his underlings/citizenry/etc. ;-) Leaders just like others' freedoms to be restricted if it gets in the way of something they want done (or not done).

In fact, I would argue that those MOST likely to restrict their own citizens' freedom are those MOST likely to intensely desire total freedom of action for themselves and their government. It is the very definition of a dictator to be like that.

****

The USA, for instance, wants total freedom to attack anyone in the world that it decides to, any time it decides to, and assumes that it has the absolute right to, regardless of U.N. approval or not...but it accords no one else such rights, except Israel.

Interesting. One has to wonder why? Is it sheer blind hubris or is it a carefully ordered plan of action? Or is it both?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

I agree. I don't believe it would be possible to get enough countries to agree with such an arrangement for any of them to be able to make it happen.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

Hard to say. Some dictator types might go for something like that, others probably wouldn't.

For a system like WAV advocates to really work all countries would have to buy in. If just one country creates ethnic or economic refugees then the rest would have to deal with them.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:30 PM

I don't know.. even if the leaders of such countries don't want democracy for their own citizens, I'd be willing to bet they'd like to have some of it for themselves in relation to the other nations of the world. Right now, they're at a distinct disadvantage.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:25 PM

Them obviously, but I was also thinking about countries that lack any sort of democratic tradition within their own borders.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:47 AM

Yeah, that's true. The current Security Council members, for instance (most likely). But they can be made irrelevant.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 10:58 AM

I'm definitely on the side of making the UN more democratic. Or for the rest of the world to form their own, democratic, UN equivalent.

Sounds good to me but there are a number of countries that would, by there very nature, be disinclined to participate in a democratic UN.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM

I don't know. We have seen from recent history that the US, at least, isn't too concerned with whether or not the UN approves when it decides it wants to commit acts of aggression against other countries. I don't think UN disapproval would prevent the US from lobbing a few nukes at Iran.

I'm definitely on the side of making the UN more democratic. Or for the rest of the world to form their own, democratic, UN equivalent.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:41 AM

The UN is a forum. Its a place where nations can meet and discuss their challenges and their differences. The members of the security council have vetoes to prevent a great power shooting war. So far, in that regard at least, the system has worked.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:00 AM

One positive, then, is that people here, from those powerful/veto nations, are saying that the UN should be a lot more democratic and, thereby, stronger...the ocean is made of many drops...

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:37 PM

"Have you actually looked at the so-called Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Us and Mexico?"

The FTA with Australia is here called "The F*** the Aussies" arrangement...

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 03:07 PM

Correct. The others are there for window dressing.


Japan and Germany are certainly nations who ought to have a major voice in world affairs via the United Nations...but they (along with Italy) had just been defeated in WWII, so naturally they got basically no voice at all at the time. There is no rational reason why they should not both now be members of a world Security Council if there is to be one at all.

We are living in an old world order that was cobbled together over 60 years ago out of the wreckage of a world war. It does not properly serve present realities.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:54 PM

Technically each country may have one vote, but only the five permanent members of the security council have the power to veto. Which in essence means they are the only ones who really have a vote.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM

The U.N. is, as Carol said, not democratic at all. It's controlled by a few powerful nations through the Security Council. It was set up that way by the winners of the last world war in order to perpetuate their own hold on power. They were all technically allies at the time, but a falling out between Russia and the West was just around the corner.

The USA, the UK, France, China and Russia set up the U.N. in January 1946 to be their tool for continuing world dominance. The victors, in other words, intended to take the spoils. To pretend that this was an attempt to establish genuine international freedom, justice, and equality is laughable.

From Wickipedia:

"The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

The French Republic
The Republic of China
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United States of America
Two of the original members, the Republic of China and the Soviet Union, were later replaced by recognized successor states, even though Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations has not been accordingly amended:

The People's Republic of China
The Russian Federation "


What does it all amount to? Power politics and sheer pragmatism. The U.N. is a compliant tool of a few major powers. The situation has been made more complex since 1946, however, by the fact that those powers do not necessarily see eye to eye on a number of international issues.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM

I think giving the five strongest nations veto power was one of the major blunders in setting up the U. N. That's been the stumbling-block that has rendered it relatively ineffective all these years.

". . . but I am against them being allowed to bring up a child. . . ."

Not arguing with you, David, this is just for your information and something you might want to take into consideration.

I know a same-sex couple (who, incidentally have been married in a church ceremony, even though this state doesn't recognize same-sex marriages—yet), two prominent attorneys in this area, who have adopted two children from Chinese orphanages. I've watched with some interest and curiosity (I, too, initially had my doubts) as these youngsters grew. They are bright, well-adjusted, and happy, and although they are aware that some people regard their family situation is unusual, this does not seem to matter to them. They call one of their fathers "Daddy" and the other "Papa." As far as feminine contact is concerned, they have a couple of aunts who spend considerable time with them.

I submit that these two youngsters are now having, and will continue to have, a far better life with Steve and Dave as their parents than they would had they grown up in an orphanage, where the Chinese policy of "one child" meant that they would never have been adopted, nor experience any kind of family life.

Apart from their sexual orientation, Steve and Dave are as straight-arrow as any two guys around. Pedophilia is no more of a concern here than it would be with heterosexual parents, if that's what worries you.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, I won't be in anybody's hair for the rest of the day. The writers' group I belong to will be arriving within half an hour, and after that, I'm making music with friends.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:27 PM

Have you actually looked at the so-called Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Us and Mexico?

It's a load of horseshit.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:20 PM

Walkabout verse,have you thought of teaming up with Tone Deaf Leopard.
It could be an interesting version of cross english pollenation.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:13 PM

Yes, Carol, I thought that was a temporary mistake when I read it - the Tory, e.g., idea that allowing a free market will result in everyone prospering is a load of rich rubbish: without REGULATIONS, there will always be rotten inhumane inequality in the world. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one nation/one vote at least an ideal of the UN (if much abused by the more powerful nations, as you noted). I'm sure I read, or heard a guide say that on my 1997 visit there.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:08 PM

Yes, but how does it work with fair trade?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM

There are different kinds and degrees of nationalism, Volgadon, as I, and Don, have noted above - I'm stressing with fair-trade rather than imperialism/conquest; I couldn't imagine modern Scottish nationalists aiming to conquer other lands, could you?
To Stu - I'm NOT against same sex partnerships but I am against them being allowed to bring up a child: the latter being a very new New Labour attitude here. In 1950s England, I may have been radical in some aspects, but no-where near as much as I am now; many would have agreed with me on many things; and society, overall, was better then.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:20 PM

Correction - nationalism with fair trade.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:18 PM

It looks to me like nationalism with free trade means that all countries in the world would pay their workers a fair and living wage so that nobody would need to (or feel the need to) leave their country of origin and go to another country to live because they don't feel they can have a good standard of living in their own country. Personally, I think it would be excellent if this were the reality, and I think most of the people who are currently having to leave their own countries for economic reasons would agree with this.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM

The problem with thinking the UN can enforce the kinds of things that are being suggested is that the UN is only made up of its member nations. If the member nations don't want any particular policy to be agreed upon, they won't agree on it. And worse, the UN is not a democracy. The UN has a few very powerful players who essentially call all the shots while most of the countries don't really have any say. It's not possible for the UN to do anything other than enforce the will of the most powerful nations. And even if it were a democracy, and all of the member nations had the same amount of say, there's no way the member nations would ever agree to the sort of thing that is being proposed in this thread.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 11:02 AM

If you truly are discussing, would you expalin in more detail how nationalism with fair trade is good, or works? I honestly haven't the foggiest what you mean by it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Stu
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:11 AM

Then where do you think this poem will lead - perhaps it will seem homophobic to some people? Could it be that a troll might use a similar approach to posting- think of something that will cause people t argue, then sit back and watch the fun?

Stu

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:46 AM

No, Stu - responding, discussing, etc. - sometimes with what I've already published elsewhere, in verse and prose.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,stu
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:12 AM

Come on WAV, admit to it - you're just trolling

Stu

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:32 AM

I took a tour of the UN when I was in New York, Don - but, as said above, in England we get a lot more news of US affairs. However, I seem to recall something about the UN helping set up eco-tourism, and, as for global fair-trade, which is NOT going to happen freely!, who better than the UN? And I agree that we've agreed on somethings.
To LH - I agree with what you said on love, and another argument of mine is a related idea of "coupleism"...there's too much of this "every man and woman for him- or herself" and "anyone's fair game" now, which led me to include this in my collection...

Poem 88 of 230: FROM 20TH-CENTURY SEXUALITY

From One Lover to Free Lover to Fee Lover,
    For children's sakes, let's fashion back to One Lover:
In public-life there are - guess what - women and men;
    Thus, upbringing's best by a woman and a man -
Not by one or two men, or one or two women,
    And not in a tug-of-war of women and men.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:49 AM

Oh, Peace, did I forget to mention Catspaw's neurotic and frantic complaining?

(Not an attack, just an opinion ;-) )

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:45 AM

Supposed to be the guy's poetry, loosely rhymed and metered. But its mostly arguing and personal attacks upon him. At one point his posts were apparently being vandalized and his links changed buy another member of some sort of hacker. He may have the thickest skin I have ever seen on this forum. He ought to get some sort of recognition for that.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:43 AM

Its about 365+ posts of complete crappola Peace. If you're looking for good thoughts, try Peter T.'s return of his Thought For The Day threads.

This thread is similar in idea and concept but comparing Peter's writings to WalksaboutVerse's bigoted ramblings and rationalizations is the difference between sipping tea at twilight in a Japanese garden or staring at a dozen turds floating in a punchbowl.

Spaw