I know he was doing it for charity and you shouldn't laugh, but I cannot resist a smirk at Lilly's failure to get up Kilimanjaro....
Just to elaborate a little on my last post. Capitalism cannot be viewed as a completed process but rather one which, like all man made systems, goes through stages and change. The fact that for example that some mill owners of the 19th Century did a lot for their workers is not surprising in as much as they were also the managers on site and also lived in the community and thus saw the results of their actions - this has all changed with the multi national based capitalism of today. I mentioned the old 'Protestant Work Ethic' in my last post to refer to a time in which the good workman was respected no matter what his job. A good toilet cleaner was a better workman than a bad professor - the work done was foremost at that time and not the rewards. A definition of a good workman being a doctor who would rather lose his fee than his patient. Hundreds of writers and artists of the 19th century glorified the 'holiness' of work, from Thomas Carlyle through to the paintings of the pre-Rapaelite brotherhood. We are not at this stage any longer - our society has changed to one based upon judging people by what they spend on status symbols (How they came by that money is no longer relevant) - we just assume blindly that their spending must be good for everyone. The second great change in Capitalism is what we are now reaching ie. the monopoly stage where the World is increasingly run by a few big multi nationals such as Monsanto whose actions actually lead to less choice not more. In the end it doesn't really matter if the only product on the market is from a State owned enterprise or from a firm which has successfully gobbled up all of it's competitors - this is the ultimate stage of unrestrained capitalism. The third great change is that unrestrained capitalism is a thread to our democracy. Why, because multi national companies are now richer than nations and can make their own politics. One example will here suffice. We would all call Denmark a model democracy. The biggest reeder of the World, Moller Maersk is Danish, they transport roughly 35% of the World's goods and have an absolute monopoly on some shipping zones. Through also owning supermarket chains in Denmark they create, directly or indirectly, nearly the same percentage of Danish jobs (35%). Their profits make up more than the Danish G.D.P. During the Iraq war the Americans had to have access to a Reeder to transport much military equipment and Maersk (Owning half of the port of New York) were happy to oblige. A massive contract and little surprise then that Denmark supported the U.S.A. from start to end of that conflict. Democracy ? This is the result of your 'unrestrained growth' and is a pattern repeated hundreds of times over in our World, in which corporations have become richer than entire nations - this is not just one negative aspect of capitalism but the central thesis because capitalism understands no such thing as restraint.
One good thing about Jersey is that there are no political parties - so there is no "party line". A big indicator of how unwelcome a party system would be is that a few years ago, when some politicians with similar views (all at the time were current or former States members) formed the Jersey Democratic Alliance only 1 got elected and they had members up for election for most of the available seats. The local paper took a poll a week later and found that those in the JDA who were sitting States Members and lost their seats would've all been re-elected if they'd stayed independent. It does mean that generally things are done for the good of the majority of the population, even if it takes longer than in places where there is a party system. I like to think that I have the work ethic referred to by others - I always think of my Dad who was self-employed and worked very long hours before I take a day off sick as to whether I am ill enough to miss work or whether I'm just tired (I have to be careful with that as being over-tired can be a contributary factor for my seizures). I also think how lucky I am compared to a Zimbabwean or a Syrian.
Wouldn't be that much of a problem - given the current world population, to achieve that would simply mean 85% of it agreeing to give up their right to life. Given the right incentive, I'm sure the weapons & chemicals industries would oblige via increased production. The remaining 15% could then live their decent lives - always assuming that they could find some alternative source of labour to do the mundane tasks for them - whilst concentrating on those compatible balance sheet results. With 85% of the population gone, there would be little need for the much-despised public sector infrastructure - welfare, education, health, policing etc. A major bonus, that balance sheet is looking healthier by the minute..... Or we could work at eliminating greed - there must surely be some appropriate genetic modification available for that?
Yes - I think we did not eliminate anyone in my scenario - we just reduced new births and following on the birth theme Mr Teacher who provoked this whole debate I seem to remember - today I heard something about a Headmaster wanting to ban parents inviting children to their child's birthday party unless they invited the whole class - is that another government rule or perhaps a dopey politically correct loony left teacher
Mrs W_Y has the opposite issue at her nursery. When there is a child's birthday, they hold a little celebration, sing happy birthday etc. nothing big and grand ans some parents will send in a few treats - but she has a few holy Joe's in her class and their parents do not allow their offspring to go into that nursery session at all. Then there's Xmas...
And managed to avoid the ire of the anti-abortionist brigade? Clever you! And just how many millenia did it take within your scenario to achieve the desired reduction? On your second point, I'd say probably neither. A similar ban was discussed up here a while ago at the instigation of neither government nor teachers - it was proposed by the parent council of the school in question, at the behest of a small group of parents of a particular religious persuasion. Commonsense prevailed, I'm glad to say... ...and Easter and Harvest Festival and Halloween and..... Of course, holding mock 'celebrations' for Diwali and Ramadan etc are perfectly acceptable.
They had a similar discussion at my nieces' school recently and the parents were told to be discrete with the invites so those not invited did not get upset. I don't know why the kids get so upset - i never got invited to any parties when i was child and it never did me any harm - the b£$%£&^*
BB - At Mrs W_Y's nursery they acknowledge most of the main religious festivals/holidays that are represented within the group and for the main there are no issues apart from the Holy Joe's, who object to everything. Personally I love Diwali, i get to stuff myself with just the best Samosa's and chilli sauce ever!
My nieces go to a catholic school and they have different faith days where they learn about Diwalli, Ramadan, Hannukah (apologies for the spelling) etc.- they really enjoy it and like telling us about different religions. I personally think it's a good thing as you would hope it will make them tolerant towards people that are different to them. Obviously there is an argument about having any religious belief at all but I won't be getting into that one
Pretty much agree with all of this ... try to bring my kids up to look beneath the skin (not just colour but also looks etc) culture and beliefs and instead look at and understand the 'person' ...
Morning all from a bright, crisp Weston-super-Mare, bit of ground frost this morning! Have a good day!
did they enjoy wearing the full black veil learning to be second class citizens how much we infidels need to learn in our treatment of women
