I think the whole multi-million estate thing can't be denied, but can't be avoided either. I'll cut "Papa Ratzi" some slack on that.

However, I think they should lighten up on birth control. The previous Pope, John Paul The FIRST, intended to ease the church's stance on birth control before he died. Of course, he reigned for only a little over a month, but there you go.

Birth control is a necessity at this point. Inasmuch as we know people SHOULD be able to control their urges, isn't it obvious that they can't nowadays? I mean, TV's way too boring lately... :wink:

Seriously, in some cases (Emphasis on some.), if people can't handle the freedom, then some preventive measures need to be taken.

But hey, I'm a pluralist Catholic, so take my opinion for what it's worth. Two cents, I guess.

I think the church should consider that the world's population is swelling abnormally. But then they have views also about contraception that they have stuck to for centuries, so it's a little hard to break them. There's always natural family planning, something which a lot of people support as well.

Personally though, I'd just go for abstinence if you really don't want kids. Better yet, get a hysterectomy or a vasectomy. :sweatface:

Technically I am a reverend. (From the interenet. Still legal though.) On my point of view, birth control isn't wrong as long as it isn't abortion. If you god wanted you to have a child while using birth control, you would get pregnent. I would prefer to have people get married and then have children. So the children will have two parents. In this day and age marriages seem like their not important, which they are. I prefer the catholic response to marriages. They believe that you can't get a divorce unless your partner commited adultery. I think they should add spousal abuse too though. They should make it harder to get a divorce. Personaly, that's my opinion though.

I think a couple could divorce if someone of them commit adultery or b'coz of domestic violance.. but most catholic seems to endure as long as they can, believing that ev'rything has solution

in my personal opinion, I slightly dun agree if church is against contraception, well.. maybe partially agree/disagree
contraception is not a wrong thing, except if u don't use it in a right place or right time or right condition

although there are calender system, vesectomy or tubectomy, etc.. but still contraception also has a good point of view..
maybe their point is that conctraception can be for the premarital sex, or that it is against God's plan for all human kind to multiple..

I dunno *sigh* it's a sensitive case n hard to be argued... especially if there's actually nothing u can change 'bout it

Ahh... I wish the priests here in the Philippines were as open-minded as you guys... the way they stick to doctrine like a rat caught in fly paper sucks big time. People are, in the truest sense, only human... they can't exactly keep a lid on their urges all the time and the natural way doesn't work for everyone nor all the time... I think we should give contraception a chance... especially here in the good ol' 'Pines

Noted! I disagree (you'll see below). I don't have a religion, and I hope you meant nothing bad about talking to anyone religious.

Nope. I wouldn't have the church demolish any place of worship simply because it's worth a lot of money. The world has inherited them as art, man. Do not destroy art. and yes, the Catholic Church has lots of elaborate rituals and grand traditions, but I don't think it's incompatible with being humble.

I think decisions like that should always be based on morality, and never practicality. So I totally disagree with you there.

I can live with a viewpoint based on morality though I might not agree with it.

What I can't live with is ouright lies. When a religious body says that condoms are pourous and of no use in protecting against HIV that's a lie.

If you think it's better to keep to a stance on morality than save lives then fair enough, some value morality over mortality. But to deny people the right to make an informed choice...

I think a more liberal pope would have steered the church in the right direction. The choice made will only result in more of the bad decisions like the one above.

I honestly think that if a Pope is 78 years old, being liberal is not one of the things you can easily expect from them, to be honest.

Of course, the Pope, to stay on topic, does have political clout. To me, if he can handle other issues in society right now regardless of his being conservative (Such as poverty and youth.), then I'm all for him. The late Pope John Paul II was conservative as well, but that fact was overshadowed by all the things he has done in his lifetime. I can only hope that Papa Ratzi can do the same.

For the record, de mortuis nil nisi bonnum and all that, but the late Pope was a pretty poor influence on the world. He had a chance to bring the church into the real world but decided to stick with ruling with a dogmatic iron fist. The new guy will just do the same.

Looking at it from a western point of view, any organisation that openly discriminated against women and gays would be brought to heel immediately. I know in England it's legislated against. However since the church has some historical presidence it can continue to oppress as it sees fit.

Of course being atheistic I'm gonna learn more to this direction, but it's not to say I don't think religion has an important role to play. I just worry that a non democratically elected figure is yet another right wing influence against liberal views.

Something I'm willing to allow to slide if only for what he has done with regards to communism.

I'm one of the harshest critics of my own religion, and the late Pope was one of the few things going for the church. He's far from perfect, but he definitely did a lot of good things in his life. I don't recall any other Pope who'd apologize to the Jews for the Holocaust, despite having had quite a few of them since WWII.

my own opinion...but this new pope does seem to be the iron fist yet blind iron fist type...i mean...based a new clip televised in canada benedict 16 actaully said no rock music n no buddism allowed in the catholic faith...i was like wtf?....
#1 i can tell straight off the bat that this guy has NEVER heard of the genre under chistian rock...
#2 buddism is a philosiphy...who cares if u belive in more than just this one singluar faith...
i mean ok this guys gonna be strict about keepin it "real" n true to word...but dont take things too literally...hmm iunno...im agnostic...i really dont care...but common for sumone wit this much influence n this much power...to say sumthin THAT blind n ignorant?...

really? my gosh.. that... seems not correct.. well, that's my personal opinion..

but, why's with rock music.. it's not always that bad
yes, there are also some christian "rock" albums

I heard from my dad that something happened when the smoke went up from the roof, the smoke also spreaded to the whole room... could it be any sign?

anw, just hope da best for him... may he always be wise enough to guide us all..
for da world peace... amin!

You're right, that's wrong. But did the Vatican actually do this (your expample)? I remember some of my teachers and some people from Pro-Life telling me that too. I'm not sure what to believe, actually. It hasn't really been relevant enough to my life to warrant my investigation. :p

I do want to know if you know for a fact, that this comes from that high in the catholic food chain, and was not done by another organization (like the Opus Dei, or Pro-Life or something?)





Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone to especially watch what you post because the topic has veered into religion. We don't want the Political Talks thread to be locked, as it's avoided it for so long now, do we? :laugh: (not that it deserves to be :sweatface: )

I'm not a Catholic but I think the selection Pope Benedict XVI was the right choice. Religion is meant to create a foundation in a society by both creating a sense of community and defining what is right and wrong. By having a conservative pope the Catholic Church is going to continue to have a strong foundation that will not be at risk of cracking because its leader is going to be caught up in the latest social trends. The Pope's duty is to interpre, apply, and uphold the Bible according to the times, not amend to it on a whim.

With regards to the HIV comments I made above, I can't remember off hand (how convenient eh :sweatface: ) but it was something like the African council on/of family planning. What I do know is that, whilst it wasn't a direct comment of the church, they are a body funded directly by the church. My personal opinion is that if the church doesn't agree with the comments, then withdraw the funding (or threaten to do so if said comments aren't changed).

In a similar issue, a high ranking South African official, maybe the mayor of Jo'burg or something, has flat out denied that there is a link between HIV and Aids. It's things like this that scare the living hell out of me.

I'll have a quick goosey around the edotwebnet and see if I can get something more concrete.

I disagree with the above post by KK though (suprisingly enough ;) )

Religion is merely meant to elicit it's own beliefs. The role of the Catholic church is surely to teach us the word of God etc. I don't think it should be the role of a religion to define right and wrong in a community, especially in a multi faith state, or indeed one with a significant proportion of aetheists.

Unfortuantly it is my belief that the newly elected pope will try to revert back to a black and white view of morality when what is really needed is an open discussion about the direction of the church. The falling participation rates in the west coupled with the chronic lack of new recruits to the priesthood spell serious trouble for the Catholic faith. I fear that a staunch conservative influence will only serve to compound this problem.

This is something I certainly don't want to see. Whilst I don't believe there is a deity, or indeed that there could be one, institutions such as the church play an important role in bonding our people together. As Robert Putnam would put it, it's an important form of social capital.

With a little luck, the church will have an open, free discussion on why it believes homosexualtity to be wrong, why women cannot enter the priesthood etc etc, until then I fear the churchgoing population, in the west at least, will continue to age and dwindle.

Not the particular story I was thinking of but here are a couple of links I've found

catholics for choice article obviously the title gives away the slant of the article.

CBS story for good measure.

The Beeb, saved the best until last

There we have it. It's in the article you posted Malk. For everyone's Enlightenment:



The lesson for today is: Never attribute the acts of a member to the body.

So much death and misery results from this and similar preventable misunderstandings.

TRP: I believe it's the vatican's duty to tell catholics what's right and what's wrong. they're the moral compass. But I don't believe states should listen to what it says. (Like the local example: not allowing divorce)

that's true.. well, although there is no pure black or pure white... there is always be grey

well, anw, I can only say "ganbatte" to him n hope he could always has all wisdom needed to direct the ship to the right direction

ain't the sun always shine so bright?!

I take your point Kuni, and I agree that, as a rule, the acts of a member shouldn't be atributed to the parent body. However, if said member is a high ranking official, the parent body has a duty to correct statements that are seriously awry. If the body fails to do so when it has full knowledge of the statement and it's veracity, then the body become complicitly accountable for the statement.

On a happier note. I was pleased to see that people at the grassroots of the church were doing what they thought was best when it came to such things as contraception. I understand that it is very difficult for an association such as the Catholic church to ammend it's stance due to extreme circumstances. If a church teaches abstinence it's hard for it to say "well you shouldn't be sleep around but, if you do use a condom". It sends out a mixed message and serves only to confuse. The best way to alieviate the problem is to 'allow' the people working at the grass roots to do what needs to be done, even if it goes against central teaching (as long as it doesn't go too far of course).

Btw, you put the role of the Catholic church far more succinctly than I ever could, and you hit the nail on the head when it comes to how states should act on such teachings.

Geesh malk, someday you'll see the right side of things. :biggrin:

Historically the religion has had a major role in any succesful society. Before the twentieth century concept of the welfare state and the unfortunate championship of socialism in it various ugly forms, it was the church that was the major player in helping out the less unfortunate and provide guidance for all. Compare the law of to the prevalent religion in a society, and guess what, there are a lot of parallels.

Even though he has contempt for organized religion, Neitzsche has some great analysis on religion's place. In short, he felt most people were sheep that needed guidance. That's where the church to come in. The next level were the lions who were leaders but were still bound to religion. Then he gets into his concept of the superman, a transcedent person so to speak, but that's not terribly relavent right now. A common theme of his was that religion was a form of social control. It defined what was right and wrong - morality, and gave people a sense of guidance in their lives. Whether or not one questions Neitzsche's sanity, he does have some interesting points.

Right or wrong has to be black or white. Sure it is fun to debate the grey areas of morality but if morality is going to be defined entirely as shades of grey, then everything is going to be in a muddled mess of confusion. It is like an athletic contest. One participates in a game to win, or watches a game to see someone win. If athletics were to be governed entirely as a shade of grey, say no one wins or loses, it is going to be no longer interesting to watch or participate in. Everything is going to be half-assed.

Morality needs to be primarily black and white. Something is either right or wrong.

Even though I rarely agree with his views, columnist Charley Reese had a good editorial on why Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was the right choice.

Right now here in Europe, continental Unification is a big thing, I really wonder if it is going to be successfull or not.

Right now they are trying to create a universal system of laws everywere among the members of the EU. They're botching it up though, more then half of the European populace is against pushing all of these measurments in fear of lower wage countries flooding the richer countries with cheap merchandise and immigrants.
One constitution will never work, these are based on a countries culture and beliefs, how can a country like Turkey ( who supports corpral punishment and discriminates woman ) be integrated with a more western society like ours without unreachebal levels of control.
Besides it will be impossible to unify all the detailed rules of a continent so differce into a single code of laws.

Nope, I really think this is going to take either centuries, or it will crach and burn within a decade when countries who made all of this up (Germany, France, Belgium etc.) are going to feel severe economic pressure from east Europe in allready difficult times.

Continents like Azia or Europe who've had millenia of differences can never come to a unification simply because there is to much social, cultural and economic difference between them in my point of view and that by no means is a bad thing.

~just a lil distraction
I saw a message board in a public place today saying that "Globalization = Poverty"

man! that's so stupid! If u can prevail in globalization means that u're fool enough as a nation and don't blame other countries or globalization for ur stupidity!

Television show yesterday on what to vote on EU constitiution:


< room fills with politicians and audience, it's off course purely a coincedence most off them are for the consitution >

Show host: allright does anyone have questions about how this is going to work?

Independant advisor: yes, I spotted some goverment administrators in the back room, I take it this show is hosted by the goverment

Show host: yes but I can ensure this is a totally independant programm. On to the questions:
The EU is working very hard on tackling animal cruelty. Do you think this is a good thing? Then vote yes for the EU if you are against animal cruelty and otherwise vote no.

Independant advisor: I object to this line of questioning, this is a complicated isseu that will likely be insuuficiently resolved by the members of the union because of matters of economics.......
Audience: BOOOOO--- BOOOOO

Show host: well we don't really have enough time in this program to discuss all of that. On to the next question:

____________________________________________________________________

AAARGGGHHH, Do they take us for a bunch of saps? I don't mind if the goverment promoting it's idea's, but if they are trying to win us over with this TERRIBLY LOW QUALITY PROPAGANDA. I'm just going to vote no for the sheer thrill over throwing them some sand in their eyes.

well... it is partly true... developing nations WILL get their ass handed to them in terms of trade if and when we do go for a completely open trading system as the WTO strives for.

Hell, even the developed countries know this deep down... they just don't want to tell you that.

Example of a developing/partially developed country loosing out:
The US and EU say they want a tariff and quota free trading environment? Well then, how do you explain the EU and US suddenly slapping taxes and quotas on chinese cotton/wool imports to their countries just because they're loosing jobs?

They don't care if another country looses thousands of jobs due to their exports, but when they start loosing thousands of their own jobs, it's suddenly necessary for taxes and quotas. What kind of bull is that? There's suddenly a WTO measure that provides for that kind of action, they say!

Free trading environment my ass!

hahaha well said Malachi!

shirayuki, I think I get what you mean. :sweatface: but I think some developing countries don't have a choice in the matter. Their poor governments need money to operate, and the institutions willing to lend them money must have requirements the poor governments need to meet before they get their money. I'm almost sure one of the requirements is lowering or eradicating import tariffs.

It's all a matter of luxury vs. economics.

These kinds of measurements are all in place because the rich countries have grown accostumed to their level of easy living and thus produce more expensive quality products and the poorer countries work their asses of (azian countries work 30% more then European countries) producing cheap reliable merchandising that can easely flood any market. Why? We want to keep working in style producing expensive crap while we don't want to buy it. Instead we bolster poor countries economics buy purchasing their merchandise. In other words, we want to keep our cake and eat it too..... aahhh yes sweet gluttony.

It's very recotnizable, now that the western european countries have opened up the borders, bussiness men and investers leave in droves to establish themselves in cheaper eastern Europe.

Capitalism sucks, only way were gonna solve it is either being mean to cheap countries like indeed China. Or when when rich countries grow accostumed to working harder and cheaper, or cheap countries grow accustumed to style and decadence.

..... I'm not a student economics, maybe I got it wrong but this is just my opinion.

ah, I believe we can do it, but with one condition, that is the money that the government corrupt is allocated in education, etc..

one of things that still hinder the developing countries from being better countries is a low education level... and sometimes I think my government does not care enough 'bout that

yeah, I know there is some point in it, malachi.. but it is something that must happen.. now, u choose to grow up now or never!

well, even if globalization is delayed to another 10 years, I am not so optimistic that my country is ready enough... we're just too lazy for it..
plus, maybe, some ppl dislike of "other countries interferences".. o_O

with corruption everywhere -just like now- we're never ready for anything, trust me!

Oh I'm very grown up... in fact, I'm already 21. :buck:

Just kidding.

Both Kuni and Merauder have basically summed it up. We developing countries don't have much of a choice in it. We could "grow up" as you've suggested, but that would take some pretty SERIOUS monetary investment in industrial and agricultural development that some countries just aren't prepared to meet. :sad:

In order to fight squarely in a square ring, we need to become square ourselves. Basically adapt to western standards of living and working... but since we follow Capitalism... that "all are rich and happy" model isn't possible... unfortunately, the capitalist system always needs both rich and poor segements of society for it to function properly.

Heh, You know what, shirayuki? You've got it good actually... Indonesia I mean... hell, if you think corruption is bad in your country, wait till you experience it on Filipino terms! Although I do agree with you that corruption sucks up a lot of money better spent on government programs. :buck:

err... not true.

communism = "equality" (with quotation marks)
which means, you work. i work. if i work harder than you do, we both the same money. if i work smarter than you do, you still earn the same money as i do even if you slack off sometimes.

capitalism = free market = equity
which means, you work. i work. if i work smarter than you do, i of course should get more money than you cos you slack off.

everybody has a choice. only the committed and determined ones get the right rewards.
if a janitor like lucio tan (filipino millionaire), a poor foreigner like henry sy (and other immigrants in the US) and countless other non-degree people were able to become RICH... why hasn't capitalism fallen? :tongue:

< on a side note > :flamethrower: constitution

about one third of the EU member countries will leave the voting to their populace. including France and The Netherlands and with an all times high amount of voters, they have rejected the EU constitution with 55-60% and England is likely to follow in these footsteps.
It won't stop Europes globalization, it might not even be for the best, but we accomplished at least something and that is that we to some degree stopped our continents de-democrazation.
Europes leaders are growing into long winded grey hermits that can't be killed, cause no mather how many times you re-elect they just mutate and come back. Just about everywere on this continent more then half a nations poeple is against it's elected leader(s), then why do they get elected? Because there is no other choice! There is no real difference between them, they are all poeple that have lived in luxury and bureaucraty for so long they are no longer human (dramatic interpetation) they are all creatures that are so convinced they know what they're doing that they think the people aren't neccesary anymore, or don't even feel the need to explain what they're doing.

So the Dutch goverment descided, hey, let's let the poeple vote on this one to uphold some faint illusion of democraty, surely cheap propeganda and laws noone but us can possibly hope to understand will convince them.

WRONG yes cause on this day a law that the majority of the elected goverment made has been rejected by the poeple itself. Yeah sure voting against that constitution may erevocably ruin economy, yeah sure the entire EU may collapse, but the Dutch and French sure as hell showed what we think about them.

Merauder, I think you got it wrong on who can make cheaper quaity merchandise. I think the developed nations, which have the technology do do things cheaper win out, and can flood the markets of developing countries, even of agriculture. That's at least what's happening in the Philippines and the super cheap hi-tech Taiwanese agricultural imports vs. homegrown farmer's sweat and blood agricultural products.

I'd like to contest this.

capitalism does mean equity and free market practices... but is it really what happens in a capitalist system?

I say no.

lucio tan and henry sy are good examples... for the 1960's world. capitalism works off the fact that there always needs to be rich and intelligent financiers of business or "taipans", as they're called here, and poor, excuse the term, less-intelligent working class people to propagate these businesses and make them feasible as an enterprise and act as consumers. That, and the concept of luxury and a whole lot of other things that come along with capitalism.

A good example would be the United States. THE best example of capitalism the world around... it should be, they basically spread the darn thing.

If what you say IS true, in that Capitalism means free market and equity for all... why isn't every American living out the "american dream"... owning a house and living decently? it's because companies need a working/consumer class to sustain themselves. Who'd buy stuff from K-mart if everyone was rich like Donald Trump? Who'd eat at McDonalds if they could afford to eat at the Waldorf? But most importantly...

How would you compensate over 10,000 workers living ala "upper class"?

The list of questions go on and on... inflation would kill your economy if you kept raising salaries and flooding your market with money. People wouldn't work at another company as employees if they had enough money to make their own. What would happen is that, everyone would have money... but then it'd be worthless due to the current monetary value system. Everyone would be the boss and CEO of their own companies... but have zero employees.

You can already see this happening... the US needs to expand it's profits by keping labor costs down... so they export jobs. At the same time, everyone's starting to buy "upper class"... so who do you sell lower class goods to? Open another makret somewhere else in the world.

I'm sorry, I'm rambling now. :buck:

china's product is CHEAP and to same extend is quite reliable.. Indonesian product.. cheap? hoow, wait a second, o_O it's not cheap at all.. I'd prefer buying import cheaper product than own country product. Plus, to be honest, our own country product is umm.. quite unreliable.. I know I know we must luv our own product but sorry, I can't take the risk that the products will end with error not long after I bought it. It's a true experience indeed..


yeah, it happens here too. It's same here, same there, same everywhere..
power make those ppl blind..
even if someday u got that big power with high status and decent job in government with a real exclusive payment, I dun think u can guarantee 100% u won't be allured by all of those.. it's just so human!

___________________________________________________

Now, the recent situation here is we had some national day of polio vaccination...
as the background, I dunno if y'all hear that lately Indonesia is truck again by polio, especially in some area, such as sukabumi, etc.. and WHO declared that the polio vaccine made by us is unreliable and below WHO standard, which apparently our government rejected that statement..
and then we got these 2 days of national polio vaccination.. n guess waht, this funny things happened

it supposed to be free..
but then in the real field, sometimes.. the free health service become not free...
and poor ppl live in remote area don't have that enough money to pay for "supposedly free" health service.. Quoting my friend's say: "yeah, they call it free, but who knows what happen in the real field.. this is indonesia anw, and I've seen many things like that happen all the time" that's what she said

wellah, back to the problem.. it turned out that.. some women don't want to get their children for this free polio vaccination.. so I heard in tv last night that in some area, those women was threaten by loval government that they'll be put in jail if they don't want to take their children for the free polio vaccination. It was to allure them to take their children to puskesmas local health centre

and in other area, the women did take their children for free vaccination only after local government gave each of them lipstick as payment...

man, I am so not optimistic for this country development..

yah... there is no perfect system. that'd be utopia. communism is a DREAM. that means, if you think everyone will receive the same things, it ain't gonna happen.


yah... tsk... tsk... bad bad United States! i pity all 80+ countries who buy their textbooks on marketing, business management, etc. oh no! that would include the entire european union, most of asia and gasp! CHINA!


:buck: do i need to answer questions like this, man? i mean, c'mon... you know the answer to this one. actually there's not just one answer. there's laziness, ignorance, LOTTO-mentality, crab mentality or just plain simple "luck."


the rich need sanitary pads, diapers, etc. and sometimes they want some fries to go with that, too, so i reckon... those are not available at bergstrom. :biggrin:

wonderful tho if everyone was rich like donald trump. i've read soderquist (once COO of walmart who made it a billion dollar industry). if everyone was as rich as donald trump, soderquist will be smart enough to diversify and make wal-mart sell diamonds instead.

the law of supply and demand, my friend, is NOT (i repeat... NOT) available in anything else EXCEPT capitalism.


only in a perfect world... how i wish it were like that! but alas... not everybody's built to be business people. and not everybody has the guts to be rich.


they sell rolls royce in the philippines. do you get it? ROLLS-ROYCE! in a country with 60% class C and a great number in the poverty line.

as for the company selling lower class goods, pay no attention to those SCAMS! why would a company try to sell lower class goods? i just dun get it! it has no business sense at all.

and lastly,

this question just rilly means you dun understand this at all. you are coming from the point of an employee.

and rather than go forward this... it will take a LOOOONG discussion. see above? :buck: we're not in the industrial age anymore. that kind of question was asked to henry ford and andrew carnegie waaaaay back. it was answered. now they're long and gone, capitalism is still alive but has shifted waaaayy ahead when those two were growing up.

again, i dun understand why we need to blame the US for everything again. and why we need to blame the rich for being rich! andrew carnegie was once a worker in the oil mines sweating off and was a man with a dream. he DAMNED deserved to be rich!

i pity those people in china for having so much potential and cannot do so because they're "anti-capitalist." :rolleyes:

Haha! That is so undeniably true.

I believe that man would have been better off when they were living off of the animals they hunted, or planted their own food, when man took only what he needed. But such is not man's nature - trade and later on the love for money had to follow, time cannot be reversed, and communism is so impossible to truly impose.

Ah... I stand defeated... Hehehehe... :sweatface:

Yeah... only in a perfect world... and the discussion would be too long. Let's leave it at this... :sweatface:

ahahahahaha, I just heard this morning that some philipinos students from Manila University was doing some demonstration, but they are naked.. 15 of them only with black sunglasses, demostrating government for low education allocation fund.

umm, I would like to ask to the philipinos, in ur country, if there is a demonstration by students or etc, will the government listen to the voice of ppl? just a lil curiosity

I just want to know and see the comparison from country to country.. n I wish I could learn what u guys have in each of ur country... ^^

I am really piss off today, really angry...
this what caused it..

several weeks ago, like I've said, there is polio endemi in several areas in indonesia.. and then government gave some national vaccination
one day, WHO said that our vaccin is under the WHO criteria.. but the ministry of health denied it.. but I don't think that they do double check on the vaccin quality
several days ago, I started to hear in news that several children got seizure after the vaccination..
but again, government said that it's not b'coz of the vaccination, but b'coz the children's state before getting vaccination is not healthy

today, just now, I heard some other news in tv, that more and more children got episodes of seizure after the vaccination and some had died.. oh my gosh! I am really angry why there has been no action yet from the government

I really concern on what is happening right now on those ppl.. If the government don't help them, then who else? This kind of condition needs swift action and not denial of the fact..

my gosh! my gosh! It's just really making me angry! ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

You shouldn't give up so easily, communism isn't a dream it's a political theory. I'd be surprised if anyone here had read the communist manifesto and/ or the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. China's communism is not what Marx intended. Nor was what grew in the former Soviet Union in the post WW2 period.

Marxism doesn't treat all people equally and doesn't expect everyone to get the same things. This is a lie forwarded by capitalists for their own ends. Anyone heard of the phrase "history is (re)written by the victors" ? I'm not a communist, I personally believe Marx's arguments miss the point a little, but his social commentary of how people are alienated from themselves by capitalism is certainly true. In addition, the monopolisation of the means of production by the bourgeois is unjust.

I'm god awful with quoting etc and I've just got back from a 6:00 until 14:00 shift at my father's factory so I can't really be bothered so my apologies for just paraphrasing.

Firstly, Kuni's point about communism being imposed totally misses the point. The way communism would come about is through a revolution by the proletariat. The gap between the rich and poor would become so great as to incite revolt. The revolt would seize the means of production (because they live near them unlike the bourgeois) and then... Communism therefore cannot be imposed by definition. It must be a popular response of the people to an unjust system.

To cherry pick Fire's points, firstly, since the US is the global hegemon it has the power to basically impose its system on the rest of the world. This means that in order to compete they have to "buy their textbooks" (though to be fair I don't really get what that means?) What is more damning is the use of the IMF and the WTO to increase the scope of their "Casino Capitalism".

Secondly, not every American is living the "Dream" because it is impossible. Laziness etc are again simple conscience saving get out clauses of capitalist apologists. We live in the system and want to justify it therefore we make up reasons why it's ok that most 20% of the population control 80% of the wealth (or whatever). It's their own fault, they were lazy or didn't work hard enough. Why aren't we asking the question of why they are lazy or why didn't they work hard enough? Surely the answers to these questions have a significant impact of the legitimacy of the system.

When it comes to selling lower class goods I have to resort to a snipe. When mass produced goods don't meet FDA (or whatever) approval why not just sell them to Africa, after all, they're only 3/5ths people anyway...?!

The reason the US gets most of the blame is because it is mostly at fault. As the Hegemon it's with them that the buck stops. They started the Bretton Woods institutions and it is them who do whatever it takes to make sure they stay in control of the world.

In reality though this is all missing the point. The issues that really need to be addressed are that of abandoning the intuitive but false notion of pre institutionalised desert and finding a true justification of punishment.

Once again the above is all pretty much stream of consciousness stuff but I'm happy to post some links and references to back up my ranting, Susan Strange for "casino capitalism" etc.

I will for now just say that anyone who has an inclination to argue seriously about this topic simply has to read the communist manifesto. It is nothing less than a required text for further discourse.

I'll grant you that Marx may have some valid socio-economic criticisms, but there's a reason why Marxism is still just a political theory, it doesn't work in real life. It's just another way to play class warfare and envy.

To keep things short on a few other points...

80/20 wealth distribution in the US - So what? The standard of living in the US, even for those living at the poverty level, is so much better than most other countries. Then there's that wonderful concept of supply-side economics...

US as a global superpower - Sure beats having either the former Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, or some one world government headed by that craptastic UN being the sole superpower.

Communist Manifesto - Read the entire thing about five years ago for a Humanties class. Still have a copy of it somewhere... so I guess I'll reread it someday...

I believe that all goverments arnt for the people anymore, more for the economy, and their military standings, its wierd we follow those who arnt the strongest or the smartest in this world like most other species do, we follow that of material possesions mostly not for the greater good of all mankind, just whats good for my country F@#% everyone else, and by living with that we i see it as the weakest species willing to break and run for your guns at any kind of hate, but also without the gov't then who will police themseles...people...people are weak stupid and panicy if not told what to do in a situaion, where is the survival of the fittest there?

what would this world be like if we all overthrew all governments and lived in a world of peace...can never happen since people like the easy way in life and dont wanna work for anything they want, all people just expect everything to be handed to them on a golden platter

all i know is if the US calls for a draft and im on that draft im outta here and moving to a deserted island, cause then at least the sanity level there will be more resonable there (as long as i have a volleyball to keep me company ill be fine :biggrin: )

It'd be wrong to assume that all the governments were for their people to begin.

Without either a strong economy or military, how could a government look out for its people? Fun fact: the USA's military budget is only a fraction of what is spent on social programs.



You're contradicting yourself for starters. Who is the strongest and the smartest in the world anyways? The rest is borderline incoherent.



Utopias, like pure Marxism, are next to impossible to attain without some very extreme and long term social engineeering. The cost of human life would be way too high. So why fret about it?



There would have to be extreme circumstances for the draft to be reinstated anyways. So there's very little to worry about right now.

the US has the global hegemon? has this always been said cos most of us speak english than chinese?

china has billions of people. it has the BIGGEST military in the world... with nukes! it's a sleeping giant and it's communist. if you need to pick anything as the global hegemon, PICK ON THEM!



20% really? i thought it was more like 10%! :rofl: anyway, check your history... it's always been like that anyways whether feudal system, samurai, whatever....

there's usually just ONE leader, not many. we're not making up reasons. we live in a system of ORDER not anarchy. unless you want everyone to be a leader... then that's another story.



that's the old world view. in the new millenium, all visionaries have predicted CHINA twenty years ago. the buck has stopped at china. see all US companies wanting to get in china?

if you dunno this, you missed it. china has been under the radar all the time. altho i appreciate the chinese, it's the government i have a problem with. but then again, nobody ever thought that china would be a superpower! :cheesy: right? :cheesy: ... right?! :eek:



i guess it's okeh for entertainment. countless critics some with PhDs, others great titans in industry, and others great leaders who have overthrown dictators like one of our national heroes, ninoy aquino have read it.

they dismissed the piece as simple "blabber."
some even joked marx has written it under the influence of opium... or boredom.

for me, i've read some and came up with the same conclusion as the credible critics above. i'd rather not waste my time to be honest. :biggrin:

Oh, lol, I do know about that. I'm sorry for the mix-up, it's just that communists in the Philippines seem more bent on bringing the government down, and putting their leaders in power to then reform the government. Which is why I'm so against what they're doing. If a communist revolution would come about from the people, then great. Just let it be a true revolution, and not just a change of government.

EDIT: I still think it can't last though. hehe. I pick words poorly. I still think it's funny.

Im not contradicting myself when im saying if we followed 1individual blindly ever step of the way we will fall down cause we cant stand on our own which is the incoherent thing id say, but i know the point of were would we be withough social structure that they provide, but you can also see that if we were all alowed to govern ourselfs who would stand up and say im the one to lead you all to the greatest life, instead we will vote which our votes dont count as 1 vote but towards points for population that is always changing. And isnt the meaning of democracy

to quote http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/ve/vek05b01.htm

"Democracy does not consist of a single, unique set of institutions that are universally applicable. The specific form that democracy takes in a country is largely determined by prevailing political, social, and economic circumstances and it is greatly influenced by historical, traditional, and cultural factors. "

but is it anymore no it consist of what can we profit from now (Material Possesions)

and the other thing if this world cant get over their petty little differences and just unit as Mankind not as individual species we will all crumble under our own pride

but what can i do about it other than b*tch about it to others and gain nothing from it but understanding why we are all controled by the untouchables (government), if this system ever gets outta hand what will we do about it riot and then get shot by our own citizens is that a government you want to follow...not me

it happened during the Nam war in many states rioters (people against the war) where goin crazy and instead of trying to negotiate or use non-leathal methods to quell the riots our great president during the time issued the army to kill all rioters on sight and it was mostley the black people and the army who were issued to do the killin were also black

what kind of government are you in anyway? if that is your government, then umm... it is very sensible to get outta that one! :laugh:

the rest of the stuff, i dun understand.

Erm, I have quite the number of objections to the above posts but currently don't have the inclination to expound them well.

I feel kinda bad since I only seem to come on the board to lambast people with political views et al recently.

I'm sure I'' become a full, productive member of the community again at some point. Until then the best thing I can do is warn you of my next post. In the economics thread I'm gonna put a stupidly long post about how pre institutional desert is impossible. I didn't want to clog up this thread and that one, whilst relevant, is pretty much dead so I don't mind dumping my diatribe there. I hope a couple of you can find the time to read it.

It never ceases to surprise me how Philippine politics has reached far and wide...

Just yesterday while riding a taxi, the driver asked me what's up with Gloria? :shocked:
Man, was I embarassed then, to realize that outside the country, our messy state of politics is being discussed...

Sheeesh, then I realize that the best example of "crab mentality" is that of the presidency...Everyone is competing, stepping on each other, accusations thrown left and right, even long after the elections are over...Its a pathetic sight, and its even more tragic when people go along with the idea, has it never occurred to anyone that if they exerted this much effort in building our economy, the Philippines would be a much better place, sheeesh... :angry:

malk, you haven't lambasted any political views. if you did, a mod or admin would already have given you a warning.

in these kinds of talks, there's always a lot of disagreements, counterarguments and just plain... opinion. :biggrin: sarcasm, notwithstanding, is a given (myself, included) as long as your stuff isn't discriminatory or just plain eeevil... it's okeh to express yourself in any way and everyone's entitled to their own brand of sarcasm. :biggrin:

just learn to accept and pepper some, yourself... if you can. :wink:

All of the hot zones in Iraq are occupied by the Marines, and the goal of the draft would be to get more Marines out of the green zone and in to the combat areas by replacing them with rank-and-file Army personel. In short: The Marines are doing most of the fighting, the army is just keeping an eye on the rest of Iraq and handling logistics for the Marines.

A draft today would consist of working for two years as a glorified security guard in a overwhelmingly peaceful environment where all of your needs were provided for and you were paid $16,000+ a year on top of that as spending money (plus all of the educational benefits received through service). The odds of being KIA are astronomically low, you probably wouldn't even see action at all. All of the soldiers I know stationed in Iraq right now have iPods, laptops, broadband internet access, they watch the latest movies on pirated DVDs. They work hard, sure, but they live pretty normal, reasonably comfortable lives.

I wouldn't volunteer, but I'd go if I was drafted. Not the end of the world, and it'd be an okay gig. It'd nicely kill a couple years until I hit my mid 20's and start thinking about raising a family. I'm not sure why people are so terrified of the draft.

P.S., I'm just posting in this thread to visit Fire because I miss her. Hi Firesenshi! :blush:

Just some thoughts on the State of the Nation address by the Philippine president:

Wow. Whenever I think of canned and rehearsed applause from now on, I'll always think of the SONA scene.

There was so much ass-kissing in that session hall I could almost smell the sh*t through the TV.

Pardon my French.

*********

For the record, I don't think people are leaving the Philippines because they don't believe in the political system any more. There's a difference between hating the system and hating the people in it. The system doesn't need to be changed... I'd suggest just changing the people running, maintaining, and working the system.

Changing the system, but having the same people in it would not change anything. This is not even mentioning that changing it to a parliamentary federalist system would only *enhance* the local feudal "my lord is better than your lord" political culture.