From Reuters
Dutch lawmaker warned over planned film on Koran
Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:43pm GMT
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch far-right politician whose anti-Islam comments have led to death threats says he is making a film for television about the Koran, despite warnings from the Dutch government about making such a film.
Geert Wilders, who lives under constant guard, told Dutch television he wanted his film to open people's eyes.
"It is not my intention to offend people. I just want to illustrate my opinions, which I have expressed as a member of parliament," he told broadcaster NOS. "If people do feel offended that is a shame, but it is not my problem," he added.
A justice ministry spokesman said the Justice and Foreign Ministers met with Geert Wilders to discuss with him the risks of making such a film to himself and Dutch interests abroad while also outlining his right to free speech.
The idea of a film made by a high-profile Islam critic for screening on Dutch television has a disturbing precedent in the Netherlands.
Three years ago an Islamic militant killed filmmaker Theo Van Gogh over his film "Submission," written by former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, in which she accused Islam of condoning violence against women.
The murder unleashed a violent anti-Muslim backlash and forced Hirsi-Ali into hiding.
Abdelmajid Khairoun of the Dutch Muslim Council told Dutch news agency ANP Wilders was simply trying to provoke, but he feared the worst should the film actually be made, and it could provoke similar reactions abroad to those seen over Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet.
Wilders' Freedom Party won nine seats out of the 150 available in parliament in last November's elections, and latest opinion polls by Peil.nl give him up to 11 seats.
Previously he has warned of a "tsunami of Islamisation" in a country home to 1 million Muslims, and has called for a vote of no-confidence in two Muslim government ministers, questioning their loyalty to the country because of their dual nationality.
In April, Wilders, who has called the Koran a "fascist" book, said he had been warned by the Dutch anti-terrorism chief about the anger caused by his statements in the Middle East.
Last year Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest shrines, withdrew its ambassador to Copenhagen over the Danish cartoons which provoked worldwide protests among Muslims.
(Reporting by Alexandra Hudson and Harro ten Wolde)
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Discuss the challenges faced by the mass media in an era of globalization.
Globalization-
Leads to an increased in cross border relations, results in the world becoming more interlinked.
Leads to effect which can in turn lead to changes which can affect the mass media (both good and bad)
Effects-increased in technology, culture diversion, improved relationships among country, cyber crimes
Increased in technology
1.-creation of new media
-citizen journalism
-efficiency and credibility of old media threatened
2.-Changing the way politics are played eg politicians using blogs for publicity
3. Cyber crimes-
pseudonym-people fake their real identity use the fake identity to harm and threatened others.
Money scams
Culture diversion
4.-media have to be more sensitive to race and religion
eg. Danish cartoon, Fitna movie by geert wilders’
->When intervention by govt is needed and when is it not (censorship)
Globalization-
Leads to an increased in cross border relations, results in the world becoming more interlinked.
Leads to effect which can in turn lead to changes which can affect the mass media (both good and bad)
Effects-increased in technology, culture diversion, improved relationships among country, cyber crimes
Increased in technology
1.-creation of new media
-citizen journalism
-efficiency and credibility of old media threatened
2.-Changing the way politics are played eg politicians using blogs for publicity
3. Cyber crimes-
pseudonym-people fake their real identity use the fake identity to harm and threatened others.
Money scams
Culture diversion
4.-media have to be more sensitive to race and religion
eg. Danish cartoon, Fitna movie by geert wilders’
->When intervention by govt is needed and when is it not (censorship)
Friday, March 28, 2008
SDL and Research on Globalisation (Fri 28th Mar '08)
Hey peeps
Time to go trawl the net for topics on Globalisation and its impact on
Political Relations
Culture
Social Issues
Environment
World Economy
GLOBALISATION:
Political - political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. [11] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of Globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power. [12] The European Union, Russian Federation and India are among the other already-established world powers which may have the ability to influence future world politics.
Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"
Social - the achievement of free circulation by people of all nations
Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Many factories are built in developing countries where they can pollute freely.
Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.
Hey peeps
Time to go trawl the net for topics on Globalisation and its impact on
Political Relations
Culture
Social Issues
Environment
World Economy
GLOBALISATION:
Political - political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. [11] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of Globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power. [12] The European Union, Russian Federation and India are among the other already-established world powers which may have the ability to influence future world politics.
Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"
Social - the achievement of free circulation by people of all nations
Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Many factories are built in developing countries where they can pollute freely.
Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
From http://www.americanpolitics.com/030499dictionary.html
How to Tell a Democrat from a Republican?
Abortion
Democrats are generally for abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is -- like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination -- an affliction and therefore needs to be treated by the government.
Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details.
Animals
Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do.
Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus.
Both think that domestic animals and the raising thereof need massive government support. This often results in an excess of such animals, which are then killed, burnt or buried instead of being shipped off to starving humanity around the world because to do so might upset the local economy.
Capital Punishment
Democrats
Because Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death.
Republicans
The Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye. That we are not always completely sure that we have the right dude before we send him on his way to St. Peter is not really all that serious of an issue. "God will sort it out" is their most commonly stated rationale for slaughtering a group of people that from their very looks it is obvious that they are guilty -- of something. Actually God really only gave us a hint as to the real possibilities: how about a lopped head for a mashed finger, for instance? That certainly should work even better. I understand that there are now over 50 offenses for which you can be given a quick dispatch to meet your maker.
The Children!
Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies.
Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan (see Jeremiah 18:21: "So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword.")
Crime
Democrats know that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay -- in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom.
Republicans believe that every person inherently knows right from wrong, whether they were raised by harlot on the mean streets of East St. Louis or by a wealthy Episcopal minister in the ritzy 'burbs of Germantown. They know that the solution to violent crime is to beat the hell out of the perpetrators.
Drugs
Democrats
Democrats have no qualms about about recreational drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs highly regulated.
Republicans
Recreational drugs are absolutely verboten according to the Republicans. It is rumored that many folks actually have great fun with such drugs, therefore they are opposed, of course, as it is a basic principle of Conservatism that having too much fun is bad for the character.
On the other hand, Republicans would allow you to prescribe and buy medicinal drugs without constraint as the drug industry is quite profitable. If you use the wrong drug or a bit too much, then the subsequent repairs to your body will again raise the national income just a bit.
Republicans support the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol even though it kills more people by a factor of ten than all the "illegal" drugs combined. This makes sense because while it may get you high and out of control, technically it is not a "controlled substance".
The Drug War
Strangely, while Republicans oppose the use of recreational drugs and Democrats are much more tolerant, they both support, with great enthusiasm, the so-called War on Drugs (WOD). That is because the WOD has little to do with drugs but is big business with large profits and incentives as well as an expression of political agendas and control.
Making a distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the WOD is difficult for several reasons that are fundamental to what government is all about. I list a few:
1. The WOD allowed that time-honored tradition of governments -- the seizure of private property -- to be re-instated (amazingly, with citizen approval!). History tells us that in ancient times, governments satisfied their desire for accumulating wealth by simple and honest plunder and property seizure. As governments got smarter, they organized the theft, provided a stable environment for its culture and labeled it "taxation" (See Mancur Olson's essay, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", American Political Science Review, Sept. 1993). I quote Olson (discussing the successful evolution of Chinese warlords): "The warlords had no claim to legitimacy and their thefts were distinguished from those of roving bandits only because they took the form of continuing taxation rather than occasional plunder." (In these modern times, the plunder sometimes has even more sophisticated titles such as "surcharge" as used by the recently imposed fee on anyone who has more than one telephone line.)
2.The WOD allows the meddling in the affairs of small defenseless countries at will.
3. The WOD provides another great opportunity to collect and spend great quantities of taxpayer's hard earned cash without any serious opposition. The reason for this is that the Drug problem is very close to being a natural disaster -- which governments love as they can spend freely without complaints.
That said, there are small but helpful differences:
Democrats
The Democrats, as well as the Republicans, support the WOD, if for no other reason, because to do otherwise would result in the loss of votes. However, Democrats also support the concept as it allows the U.S. to act as the world policeman. Socialism is never going to work without one-world government.
Republicans
The Republicans love the WOD because it allows us to build up the military, throw a lot of people in jail that don't come around to the prescribed religious/moral values, and is very profitable.
Education
Democrats are for universal government provided education and to make it fair, all educational institutions must be equally bad. Of course that only applies to the general population -- politicians send their own children to private schools so that when they graduate they might actually be prepared to make a decent living and they will not be biased against the values of public education for the masses.
Republicans support private education but do not see any reason why the institutions shouldn't be government funded. They particularly like the idea of religious or military schools that are better equipped to teach a state of perpetual obedience.
Environment
Democrats see the "environment" as another means to control the masses. Even if "Global Warming" only exists in the heads of some out-of-work pacifists, it is certainly a powerful tool to keep the masses towing the line. Further, it is an unbelievable sink hole for public funds. Have you ever looked at what the asbestos scare cost?
Republicans were a little late in appreciating the merits of environmentalism and have therefore had to live with some bad press. However, someone finally showed them how much money could be made by simply declaring Freon 12 as the main cause of Global Warming from which billions were made developing and selling a new coolant. This brought them around and now they frantically trying to find the next common household product to ban -- like toilets that use too much water.
Government Spending
Democrats
Democrats make no excuses about massive government spending. For the government to provide a happy, healthy, shameless, and even exciting society, for everyone, regardless of their personal means, requires a massive amount of cash from the citizens as well as all you can borrow. Further, to make sure that no citizen gets into trouble and is in bed each night at a reasonable hour, a huge government staff is a necessity. This, in turn, requires every dime the public can spare and just a bit more.
Republicans
Republicans, in their hearts, and especially at campaign time, really would like to cut back on government spending -- especially such luxuries as the social, environmental, and health programs. But there are necessities that it would be irresponsible to avoid. Such things as National Defense, which requires a military budget far greater than any we have had in any major war, can no more be cut back than you can cut back on helping the folks back home that need a superhighway to the new park out in the country. These are essential expenditures unlike the "feel good" stuff of the Democrats. When Iraq threatens our shores by such hostile actions as flying one of their planes over the southern half of their country, we better be ready for action.
Individual Liberty
Democrats
Democrats are great believers in the concept of Liberty for all of humanity. It's just that individual humans need to be restrained -- for their on good of course. It would be irresponsible to let an individual endanger their health by eating greasy theater popcorn or drinking water from a mountain stream that some fish has peed in (and hasn't been tested by a government agency). Sadly, when you face the reality, every aspect of human activity must be controlled by the superior knowledge of the government bureaucrat. That government bureaucrats themselves are sometimes accused of being human is a fallacious argument as their holistic association results in superior knowledge.
Republicans
Republicans would like to give people lots of freedom especially those that are economically active such the officers of large corporations and farmers. However, some aspects of human nature just cannot go unpunished. There must be law and order. Violence must be stopped if we have to kill every one of the sorry bastards. Republicans feel that they have the monstrous responsibility of enforcing God's word. It is not a matter of public vote. People who have unapproved sex, get high on anything (including testosterone) except approved drugs such as alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine, don't regularly go to an approved church, allow their kids to kiss before they get married, and talk smart to policemen that are dutifully beating the hell out of them, must receive appropriate punishment.
Military
Democrats are very fond of the military as it is a vast receptacle of funds and the defense industry has the reputation of being basically a giant welfare program for mostly engineers and scientists, without which millions of them would have to get a real job.
Republicans also love the military for its capacity to absorb unbelievably large quantities of money. Even more they appreciate the importance of importing American Justice to sometimes unreceptive countries by means of our military.
Privacy
Democrats believe in the sacred right of privacy as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Unless, of course, it involves money, children, or your conversation on the phone (it is well known that phones are sometimes used by terrorists).
Republicans see no particular reason why you would want privacy. What's the matter: You got something to hide? If you are not doing anything criminal, then privacy should not be a concern, according to them. Too much privacy is a real hindrance to getting every one in jail that ought to be there.
Private Property
Democrats believe that all property should be shared equally among the people and enough to the animals to ensure their welfare (which they can't do for the people as there is just not enough). To insure the proper usage of property, the government, of course, must be the actual custodian of the property. What you think is yours is actually only on loan to you and may be recalled at any time. The whining of property owners that lose up in the millions of dollars when the government declares that a piece of property is needed for R&R for traveling geese is misplaced as it never belonged to these so-called property owners in the first place.
Republicans, on the other hand, definately believe in the right to private property as clearly enunciated by our Founding Fathers. But there is one small catch: The Bible is older than the Constition and trumps it. The bible points out very clearly, "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned; the flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox, however, shall go unpunished", Exodus 21:28. That means that if your house or your car or your bank account is in any remote way associated with a crime, then it must be "stoned to death". The modern translation of "stoned to death" is "given to the government".
Surprizingly, an amazing amount of property is in someway related to a crime. For example, let us say that some pot dealer is driving down the street and decides to turn his car around using your driveway. It is obvious that your property has now aided in a crime for if it had not been there, the druggie's auto would have fallen into a bottomless pit. Case closed.
Racial Issues
Democrats believe all "minority" races to be "disadvantaged" and to need government help. An exception is made for the Orientals because they stubbornly insist on doing quite well for themselves and refuse to suck up. They see minorities mainly as large block votes at bargain prices. Classes should not be encouraged to mix as we need to retain each of their cultures.
Republicans have always been fond of the people of color as they have been very well behaved house servants every since Lincoln freed them from slavery. Classes should not be allowed to mix as an inferior offspring will result. Some claim that hybrids in the animal world are usually superior to their parents but this is easily answered as humans obviously are not animals!
Religion
Democrats think religion is cool especially if it is "New Age", ancient Native American superstitions, Far East shamanism, or African witch doctors. What they can't stand are the low class, red neck religions like Church of God and Southern Baptists.
Republicans are in full support of religion and see it as every citizen's duty -- as long as it is "main line". The definition of "main line" is left up to the politicians, of course.
Sex
Democrats are in full support of sexual activity, especially if it is a little kooky. The concept of the old fashioned "male-female" sexual interaction is best left to the lower animals.
Republicans know that the purpose of sex is for procreation and not pleasure. If you must have pleasurable sex, which by definition would be outside of the marriage, then for God's sake have the decency to lie about it!
Smoking
Democrats consider any form of smoking of tobacco that is produced by the large corporations to be evil. The only material acceptable for smoking is marijuana or Native American ritual tobacco. If you are invited to the home of one of your cool friends and are handed a joint, do not think you have to eat it just because there is a sign on the wall that says, "Thank you for not Smoking".
Republicans think smoking is fine as long as it provides the opportunity to ship large quantities of money to the subsidized tobacco farmers and producers. Of course the smoking of any "controlled substance" is not permitted even if tobacco kills far more people. Because, it is the law, you idiot. Republicans are for law and order. Lots of both.
War and other "World Cop" Activities
Democrats, the "Peace Party", are strongly against war and other police actions and will attempt to create legislation to limit presidential powers and to influence public opinion -- during Republican administrations. Of course, if the Democrats happen to be in charge, then such activities are OK because their purpose is to stop violence and to "prevent further suffering and bloodshed".
Republicans, on the other hand, have no hesitation in bombing any recalcitrant country (those that refuse to accept aid in return for submission to U.S. control) "back to the stone age", unless, of course, the Democrats are in power. In that case, they are opposed to such acts because Democrats rarely have a decent "exit strategy". ("Exit Strategy" is a term often used in discussions of sexual activity. It is sort of the opposite to "foreplay".)
Wealth
Democrats believe in the concept of "equal distribution of wealth" even if they happened to be hoarding quite a pile of it. They justify this by the fact that to do their job requires that they live in a certain high class style that allows them to associate with the influential.
Republicans believe that hard work and the economic "invisible hand" will make sure that anyone who deserves it gets it or the reverse as the case may be. By definition, if you are broke and living off the street, you deserve it.
How to Tell a Democrat from a Republican?
Abortion
Democrats are generally for abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is -- like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination -- an affliction and therefore needs to be treated by the government.
Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details.
Animals
Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do.
Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus.
Both think that domestic animals and the raising thereof need massive government support. This often results in an excess of such animals, which are then killed, burnt or buried instead of being shipped off to starving humanity around the world because to do so might upset the local economy.
Capital Punishment
Democrats
Because Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death.
Republicans
The Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye. That we are not always completely sure that we have the right dude before we send him on his way to St. Peter is not really all that serious of an issue. "God will sort it out" is their most commonly stated rationale for slaughtering a group of people that from their very looks it is obvious that they are guilty -- of something. Actually God really only gave us a hint as to the real possibilities: how about a lopped head for a mashed finger, for instance? That certainly should work even better. I understand that there are now over 50 offenses for which you can be given a quick dispatch to meet your maker.
The Children!
Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies.
Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan (see Jeremiah 18:21: "So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword.")
Crime
Democrats know that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay -- in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom.
Republicans believe that every person inherently knows right from wrong, whether they were raised by harlot on the mean streets of East St. Louis or by a wealthy Episcopal minister in the ritzy 'burbs of Germantown. They know that the solution to violent crime is to beat the hell out of the perpetrators.
Drugs
Democrats
Democrats have no qualms about about recreational drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs highly regulated.
Republicans
Recreational drugs are absolutely verboten according to the Republicans. It is rumored that many folks actually have great fun with such drugs, therefore they are opposed, of course, as it is a basic principle of Conservatism that having too much fun is bad for the character.
On the other hand, Republicans would allow you to prescribe and buy medicinal drugs without constraint as the drug industry is quite profitable. If you use the wrong drug or a bit too much, then the subsequent repairs to your body will again raise the national income just a bit.
Republicans support the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol even though it kills more people by a factor of ten than all the "illegal" drugs combined. This makes sense because while it may get you high and out of control, technically it is not a "controlled substance".
The Drug War
Strangely, while Republicans oppose the use of recreational drugs and Democrats are much more tolerant, they both support, with great enthusiasm, the so-called War on Drugs (WOD). That is because the WOD has little to do with drugs but is big business with large profits and incentives as well as an expression of political agendas and control.
Making a distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the WOD is difficult for several reasons that are fundamental to what government is all about. I list a few:
1. The WOD allowed that time-honored tradition of governments -- the seizure of private property -- to be re-instated (amazingly, with citizen approval!). History tells us that in ancient times, governments satisfied their desire for accumulating wealth by simple and honest plunder and property seizure. As governments got smarter, they organized the theft, provided a stable environment for its culture and labeled it "taxation" (See Mancur Olson's essay, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", American Political Science Review, Sept. 1993). I quote Olson (discussing the successful evolution of Chinese warlords): "The warlords had no claim to legitimacy and their thefts were distinguished from those of roving bandits only because they took the form of continuing taxation rather than occasional plunder." (In these modern times, the plunder sometimes has even more sophisticated titles such as "surcharge" as used by the recently imposed fee on anyone who has more than one telephone line.)
2.The WOD allows the meddling in the affairs of small defenseless countries at will.
3. The WOD provides another great opportunity to collect and spend great quantities of taxpayer's hard earned cash without any serious opposition. The reason for this is that the Drug problem is very close to being a natural disaster -- which governments love as they can spend freely without complaints.
That said, there are small but helpful differences:
Democrats
The Democrats, as well as the Republicans, support the WOD, if for no other reason, because to do otherwise would result in the loss of votes. However, Democrats also support the concept as it allows the U.S. to act as the world policeman. Socialism is never going to work without one-world government.
Republicans
The Republicans love the WOD because it allows us to build up the military, throw a lot of people in jail that don't come around to the prescribed religious/moral values, and is very profitable.
Education
Democrats are for universal government provided education and to make it fair, all educational institutions must be equally bad. Of course that only applies to the general population -- politicians send their own children to private schools so that when they graduate they might actually be prepared to make a decent living and they will not be biased against the values of public education for the masses.
Republicans support private education but do not see any reason why the institutions shouldn't be government funded. They particularly like the idea of religious or military schools that are better equipped to teach a state of perpetual obedience.
Environment
Democrats see the "environment" as another means to control the masses. Even if "Global Warming" only exists in the heads of some out-of-work pacifists, it is certainly a powerful tool to keep the masses towing the line. Further, it is an unbelievable sink hole for public funds. Have you ever looked at what the asbestos scare cost?
Republicans were a little late in appreciating the merits of environmentalism and have therefore had to live with some bad press. However, someone finally showed them how much money could be made by simply declaring Freon 12 as the main cause of Global Warming from which billions were made developing and selling a new coolant. This brought them around and now they frantically trying to find the next common household product to ban -- like toilets that use too much water.
Government Spending
Democrats
Democrats make no excuses about massive government spending. For the government to provide a happy, healthy, shameless, and even exciting society, for everyone, regardless of their personal means, requires a massive amount of cash from the citizens as well as all you can borrow. Further, to make sure that no citizen gets into trouble and is in bed each night at a reasonable hour, a huge government staff is a necessity. This, in turn, requires every dime the public can spare and just a bit more.
Republicans
Republicans, in their hearts, and especially at campaign time, really would like to cut back on government spending -- especially such luxuries as the social, environmental, and health programs. But there are necessities that it would be irresponsible to avoid. Such things as National Defense, which requires a military budget far greater than any we have had in any major war, can no more be cut back than you can cut back on helping the folks back home that need a superhighway to the new park out in the country. These are essential expenditures unlike the "feel good" stuff of the Democrats. When Iraq threatens our shores by such hostile actions as flying one of their planes over the southern half of their country, we better be ready for action.
Individual Liberty
Democrats
Democrats are great believers in the concept of Liberty for all of humanity. It's just that individual humans need to be restrained -- for their on good of course. It would be irresponsible to let an individual endanger their health by eating greasy theater popcorn or drinking water from a mountain stream that some fish has peed in (and hasn't been tested by a government agency). Sadly, when you face the reality, every aspect of human activity must be controlled by the superior knowledge of the government bureaucrat. That government bureaucrats themselves are sometimes accused of being human is a fallacious argument as their holistic association results in superior knowledge.
Republicans
Republicans would like to give people lots of freedom especially those that are economically active such the officers of large corporations and farmers. However, some aspects of human nature just cannot go unpunished. There must be law and order. Violence must be stopped if we have to kill every one of the sorry bastards. Republicans feel that they have the monstrous responsibility of enforcing God's word. It is not a matter of public vote. People who have unapproved sex, get high on anything (including testosterone) except approved drugs such as alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine, don't regularly go to an approved church, allow their kids to kiss before they get married, and talk smart to policemen that are dutifully beating the hell out of them, must receive appropriate punishment.
Military
Democrats are very fond of the military as it is a vast receptacle of funds and the defense industry has the reputation of being basically a giant welfare program for mostly engineers and scientists, without which millions of them would have to get a real job.
Republicans also love the military for its capacity to absorb unbelievably large quantities of money. Even more they appreciate the importance of importing American Justice to sometimes unreceptive countries by means of our military.
Privacy
Democrats believe in the sacred right of privacy as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Unless, of course, it involves money, children, or your conversation on the phone (it is well known that phones are sometimes used by terrorists).
Republicans see no particular reason why you would want privacy. What's the matter: You got something to hide? If you are not doing anything criminal, then privacy should not be a concern, according to them. Too much privacy is a real hindrance to getting every one in jail that ought to be there.
Private Property
Democrats believe that all property should be shared equally among the people and enough to the animals to ensure their welfare (which they can't do for the people as there is just not enough). To insure the proper usage of property, the government, of course, must be the actual custodian of the property. What you think is yours is actually only on loan to you and may be recalled at any time. The whining of property owners that lose up in the millions of dollars when the government declares that a piece of property is needed for R&R for traveling geese is misplaced as it never belonged to these so-called property owners in the first place.
Republicans, on the other hand, definately believe in the right to private property as clearly enunciated by our Founding Fathers. But there is one small catch: The Bible is older than the Constition and trumps it. The bible points out very clearly, "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned; the flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox, however, shall go unpunished", Exodus 21:28. That means that if your house or your car or your bank account is in any remote way associated with a crime, then it must be "stoned to death". The modern translation of "stoned to death" is "given to the government".
Surprizingly, an amazing amount of property is in someway related to a crime. For example, let us say that some pot dealer is driving down the street and decides to turn his car around using your driveway. It is obvious that your property has now aided in a crime for if it had not been there, the druggie's auto would have fallen into a bottomless pit. Case closed.
Racial Issues
Democrats believe all "minority" races to be "disadvantaged" and to need government help. An exception is made for the Orientals because they stubbornly insist on doing quite well for themselves and refuse to suck up. They see minorities mainly as large block votes at bargain prices. Classes should not be encouraged to mix as we need to retain each of their cultures.
Republicans have always been fond of the people of color as they have been very well behaved house servants every since Lincoln freed them from slavery. Classes should not be allowed to mix as an inferior offspring will result. Some claim that hybrids in the animal world are usually superior to their parents but this is easily answered as humans obviously are not animals!
Religion
Democrats think religion is cool especially if it is "New Age", ancient Native American superstitions, Far East shamanism, or African witch doctors. What they can't stand are the low class, red neck religions like Church of God and Southern Baptists.
Republicans are in full support of religion and see it as every citizen's duty -- as long as it is "main line". The definition of "main line" is left up to the politicians, of course.
Sex
Democrats are in full support of sexual activity, especially if it is a little kooky. The concept of the old fashioned "male-female" sexual interaction is best left to the lower animals.
Republicans know that the purpose of sex is for procreation and not pleasure. If you must have pleasurable sex, which by definition would be outside of the marriage, then for God's sake have the decency to lie about it!
Smoking
Democrats consider any form of smoking of tobacco that is produced by the large corporations to be evil. The only material acceptable for smoking is marijuana or Native American ritual tobacco. If you are invited to the home of one of your cool friends and are handed a joint, do not think you have to eat it just because there is a sign on the wall that says, "Thank you for not Smoking".
Republicans think smoking is fine as long as it provides the opportunity to ship large quantities of money to the subsidized tobacco farmers and producers. Of course the smoking of any "controlled substance" is not permitted even if tobacco kills far more people. Because, it is the law, you idiot. Republicans are for law and order. Lots of both.
War and other "World Cop" Activities
Democrats, the "Peace Party", are strongly against war and other police actions and will attempt to create legislation to limit presidential powers and to influence public opinion -- during Republican administrations. Of course, if the Democrats happen to be in charge, then such activities are OK because their purpose is to stop violence and to "prevent further suffering and bloodshed".
Republicans, on the other hand, have no hesitation in bombing any recalcitrant country (those that refuse to accept aid in return for submission to U.S. control) "back to the stone age", unless, of course, the Democrats are in power. In that case, they are opposed to such acts because Democrats rarely have a decent "exit strategy". ("Exit Strategy" is a term often used in discussions of sexual activity. It is sort of the opposite to "foreplay".)
Wealth
Democrats believe in the concept of "equal distribution of wealth" even if they happened to be hoarding quite a pile of it. They justify this by the fact that to do their job requires that they live in a certain high class style that allows them to associate with the influential.
Republicans believe that hard work and the economic "invisible hand" will make sure that anyone who deserves it gets it or the reverse as the case may be. By definition, if you are broke and living off the street, you deserve it.
Democrat vs Republican
Democrats believed the government is there to provide an even playing field for all the people. Republicans believe the government is for the wealthy few, to make and keep money and power.
CRIME
Republicans believe that the first obligation of government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. We believe that both juveniles and adults must learn that their actions have consequences and that they will be held responsible for their behavior. We support increasing the share of the state budget devoted to the criminal justice system (currently only 6 percent), requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, building more prisons and boot camps for adults and juveniles, giving judges more authority over juveniles, removing the juvenile justice system from HRS; requiring, whenever possible, prisoners to pay for the cost of their incarceration, and streamlining procedures for implementing capital punishment. We also support requiring prisoners to work and in appropriate cases requiring prisoners to receive a high school equivalency education as a condition of their release.
Democrats in the legislature continue to vote to water down most of the rime fighting provisions sup ported by Republicans. They also vote to weaken capital punishment laws. Under our Democrat dominated government Florida leads the nation in violent crime.
EDUCATION
Republicans believe in local control of education, reducing bureaucracy both in Tallahassee and at the district level, removing state mandates wherever possible, dramatically in creasing the share of the education budget allocated to the classroom, taking the politics and special interests out of the state funding formula, allowing local option school choice among all public schools, and implementing pilot programs to let families choose among all accredited schools, public or private. We believe that choice in education should not be limited to those with high incomes. Republicans believe that our children must come first and that all other considerations with respect to the education system are secondary.
Democrats continue to protect the status quo in our failing education system. They mislead the public by promising "cuts" in the education bureaucracy and then engaging in a shell game of transferring employees that does not save money or increase local control of education. They talk about "reforms", but ultimately focus on protecting business as usual and the narrow interests of the leadership of teachers unions, often at the expense of our children. Florida's Cabinet, which serves as the state Board of Education, has never been con trolled by Republicans. Under our Democrat dominated government, Florida currently ranks 44th in the nation in SAT scores and 48th in graduation rates, despite the fact that our per pupil expenditures are equal to the national average.
HEALTH CARE
Republicans believe that the following principles should be emphasized in health care reform: maintaining quality, providing choice, guaranteeing access, reducing costs, preserving jobs, enhancing flexibility, ensuring fairness, and encouraging individual responsibility. Republicans believe that something is wrong in America when those on welfare are provided health insurance through Medicaid, while many hard working individuals and families cannot obtain health insurance. Republicans believe that reforms should be implemented which will allow individuals to keep their insurance if they change or lose their jobs. We believe that insurance should be guaranteed renewable. Republicans believe that the quality of American medical care which is the highest in the world must be preserved. We believe that the right to choose your own doctor and your own health insurance coverage must be maintained. Republicans believe that the federal tax subsidy currently given only to employers should be extended through a tax deduction or credit to individuals to assure tax fairness for those who purchase their health insurance and medical care directly. Republicans believe that Americans should be allowed to establish tax free medical savings ac counts out of which they could pay for routine medical care. We also believe that responsible medical malpractice tort re form will contribute to reducing medical costs.
Democrats support forcing Americans to purchase their health insurance through government alliances. They advocate job killing employer mandates, massive new pay roll taxes, government health entitlements, and government controls which would lead to rationing of medical services, such as already occurs in the Veterans Administration. Their big government solutions, which amount to nothing less than the welfarization of health care, would put at risk the quality of our medical care and the ability of Americans to choose their doctors and their health insurance.
TAXES and SPENDING
Republicans continue to fight for constitutional limits on state taxing and spending. We believe that government should not grow faster than the ability of citizens to pay for it. For too long, family budgets have been shrinking while government budgets have been growing. Republicans believe that state taxing and spending growth should be limited to no more than growth in the personal income of Floridians. The average Floridian already works until May 2just to earn enough to pay total federal, state and local taxes. In Florida, the per capita total tax burden is already over $7,100 annually. Clearly, we aren't taxed too little; government spends too much and wastes too much.
For years, Democrats have fought to raise taxes of all kinds, and against any constitutional limit on state taxing and spending. Recently, under pressure from Republicans and the public, Democrats have paid lip service to the concept of tax and spending limits. However, they continue to push for gaping loopholes which would leave explosive welfare programs unchecked and allow unlimited expansions of government entitlements.
WELFARE
Republicans support requiring able bodied recipients of public assistance to work. We also support putting time limits on welfare assistance. We believe incentives and requirements should be implemented to ensure that welfare recipients and their' children attend school or job training, receive proper immunizations, and remain drug free. We support improving efforts to identify fathers of children born to unmarried mothers and vigorously pursuing child support payments. Republicans also believe that welfare reforms, at a minimum, should not cost more than current programs.
Democrats in the legislature continue to vote against requiring welfare recipients to work and against placing time limits on welfare. Democrat proposals for "reforms" routinely cost more than current programs. Under the current Democrat administration, Florida leads the nation in welfare over payments. Florida gives away hundreds of millions of dollars annually to individuals who are not eligible to receive benefits.
JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
Republicans believe that the best conditions for job opportunity and economic growth come from individual freedom, limited government, low taxes and spending, fewer and more flexible regulations, and a society protected from crime that offers quality educational opportunities for all. Free men and women, engaging in free enterprise, unhampered by restrictive government policies, will provide the greatest opportunities for the creation of wealth and progress for our state and nation.
Democrats seem to believe that government can create jobs. They favor higher taxes and spending, and bigger government which diminishes the private sector and individual freedom. Democrats continue to support heavy regulations and mandates that stifle entrepreneurial spirit and economic growth. As former Democrat Presidential candidate Paul Tsongas noted, "Democrats love employees but hate employers. The problem is you can't have employees without employers." This fundamental truth is lost on most Democrats in office.
Democrats believed the government is there to provide an even playing field for all the people. Republicans believe the government is for the wealthy few, to make and keep money and power.
CRIME
Republicans believe that the first obligation of government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. We believe that both juveniles and adults must learn that their actions have consequences and that they will be held responsible for their behavior. We support increasing the share of the state budget devoted to the criminal justice system (currently only 6 percent), requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, building more prisons and boot camps for adults and juveniles, giving judges more authority over juveniles, removing the juvenile justice system from HRS; requiring, whenever possible, prisoners to pay for the cost of their incarceration, and streamlining procedures for implementing capital punishment. We also support requiring prisoners to work and in appropriate cases requiring prisoners to receive a high school equivalency education as a condition of their release.
Democrats in the legislature continue to vote to water down most of the rime fighting provisions sup ported by Republicans. They also vote to weaken capital punishment laws. Under our Democrat dominated government Florida leads the nation in violent crime.
EDUCATION
Republicans believe in local control of education, reducing bureaucracy both in Tallahassee and at the district level, removing state mandates wherever possible, dramatically in creasing the share of the education budget allocated to the classroom, taking the politics and special interests out of the state funding formula, allowing local option school choice among all public schools, and implementing pilot programs to let families choose among all accredited schools, public or private. We believe that choice in education should not be limited to those with high incomes. Republicans believe that our children must come first and that all other considerations with respect to the education system are secondary.
Democrats continue to protect the status quo in our failing education system. They mislead the public by promising "cuts" in the education bureaucracy and then engaging in a shell game of transferring employees that does not save money or increase local control of education. They talk about "reforms", but ultimately focus on protecting business as usual and the narrow interests of the leadership of teachers unions, often at the expense of our children. Florida's Cabinet, which serves as the state Board of Education, has never been con trolled by Republicans. Under our Democrat dominated government, Florida currently ranks 44th in the nation in SAT scores and 48th in graduation rates, despite the fact that our per pupil expenditures are equal to the national average.
HEALTH CARE
Republicans believe that the following principles should be emphasized in health care reform: maintaining quality, providing choice, guaranteeing access, reducing costs, preserving jobs, enhancing flexibility, ensuring fairness, and encouraging individual responsibility. Republicans believe that something is wrong in America when those on welfare are provided health insurance through Medicaid, while many hard working individuals and families cannot obtain health insurance. Republicans believe that reforms should be implemented which will allow individuals to keep their insurance if they change or lose their jobs. We believe that insurance should be guaranteed renewable. Republicans believe that the quality of American medical care which is the highest in the world must be preserved. We believe that the right to choose your own doctor and your own health insurance coverage must be maintained. Republicans believe that the federal tax subsidy currently given only to employers should be extended through a tax deduction or credit to individuals to assure tax fairness for those who purchase their health insurance and medical care directly. Republicans believe that Americans should be allowed to establish tax free medical savings ac counts out of which they could pay for routine medical care. We also believe that responsible medical malpractice tort re form will contribute to reducing medical costs.
Democrats support forcing Americans to purchase their health insurance through government alliances. They advocate job killing employer mandates, massive new pay roll taxes, government health entitlements, and government controls which would lead to rationing of medical services, such as already occurs in the Veterans Administration. Their big government solutions, which amount to nothing less than the welfarization of health care, would put at risk the quality of our medical care and the ability of Americans to choose their doctors and their health insurance.
TAXES and SPENDING
Republicans continue to fight for constitutional limits on state taxing and spending. We believe that government should not grow faster than the ability of citizens to pay for it. For too long, family budgets have been shrinking while government budgets have been growing. Republicans believe that state taxing and spending growth should be limited to no more than growth in the personal income of Floridians. The average Floridian already works until May 2just to earn enough to pay total federal, state and local taxes. In Florida, the per capita total tax burden is already over $7,100 annually. Clearly, we aren't taxed too little; government spends too much and wastes too much.
For years, Democrats have fought to raise taxes of all kinds, and against any constitutional limit on state taxing and spending. Recently, under pressure from Republicans and the public, Democrats have paid lip service to the concept of tax and spending limits. However, they continue to push for gaping loopholes which would leave explosive welfare programs unchecked and allow unlimited expansions of government entitlements.
WELFARE
Republicans support requiring able bodied recipients of public assistance to work. We also support putting time limits on welfare assistance. We believe incentives and requirements should be implemented to ensure that welfare recipients and their' children attend school or job training, receive proper immunizations, and remain drug free. We support improving efforts to identify fathers of children born to unmarried mothers and vigorously pursuing child support payments. Republicans also believe that welfare reforms, at a minimum, should not cost more than current programs.
Democrats in the legislature continue to vote against requiring welfare recipients to work and against placing time limits on welfare. Democrat proposals for "reforms" routinely cost more than current programs. Under the current Democrat administration, Florida leads the nation in welfare over payments. Florida gives away hundreds of millions of dollars annually to individuals who are not eligible to receive benefits.
JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
Republicans believe that the best conditions for job opportunity and economic growth come from individual freedom, limited government, low taxes and spending, fewer and more flexible regulations, and a society protected from crime that offers quality educational opportunities for all. Free men and women, engaging in free enterprise, unhampered by restrictive government policies, will provide the greatest opportunities for the creation of wealth and progress for our state and nation.
Democrats seem to believe that government can create jobs. They favor higher taxes and spending, and bigger government which diminishes the private sector and individual freedom. Democrats continue to support heavy regulations and mandates that stifle entrepreneurial spirit and economic growth. As former Democrat Presidential candidate Paul Tsongas noted, "Democrats love employees but hate employers. The problem is you can't have employees without employers." This fundamental truth is lost on most Democrats in office.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Animal-testing/vivisection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is now used to refer to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals."[11] For others, the word has a pejorative connotation, implying torture and suffering.[12] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation."[13][14]
Debate on vivisection
http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4191
Quotes regarding animal testing
http://animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Quotes/SortQuotesVivis.htm
American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)
http://www.aavs.org/
Cloning
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
Human Cloning: What’s at Stake
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/kilner_george_2004-10-08.htm
Ethics of human cloning
http://www.globalchange.com/cloneethics.htm
Human Cloning
http://www.globalchange.com/clone_index.htm
stem cell cloning
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201092.html
stem cell research
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html
singapore view
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/Technology/CTrendsTechno-060817.htm
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231543.asp
Bioweaponry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioweapon
http://www.geocities.com/area51/Shadowlands/6583/project346.html
Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation (xeno- from the Greek meaning "foreign") is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another such as from pigs to humans (see Medical grafting). Such cells, tissues or organs are called xenografts or xenotransplants. The term allotransplantation refers to a same-species transplant. Human xenotransplantation offers a potential treatment for end-stage organ failure, a significant health problem in parts of the industrialized world. It also raises many novel medical, legal and ethical issues. A continuing concern is that pigs have different lifespans than humans and their tissues age at a different rate. Disease transmission (xenozoonosis) and permanent alteration to the genetic code of animals are also a cause for concern.
Because there is a worldwide shortage of organs for clinical implantation, about 60% of patients awaiting replacement organs die on the waiting list. Recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of transplant organ rejection have brought science to a stage where it is reasonable to consider that organs from other species, probably pigs, may soon be engineered to minimize the risk of serious rejection and used as an alternative to human tissues, possibly ending organ shortages.
Other procedures, some of which are being investigated in early clinical trials, aim to use cells or tissues from other species to treat life-threatening and debilitating illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, liver failure and Parkinson's disease. If vitrification can be perfected it could allow for long-term storage of xenogenic cells, tissues and organs so they would be more readily available for transplant.
There are only a few published successful xenotransplant procedures. Some patients who were in need of liver transplants were able to use pig livers that were on a trolley by their bedside successfully until a proper donor liver was available[1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation
http://www.uncaged.co.uk/xeno.htm
The Xenotransplantation Debate
http://biotech.about.com/od/bioethics/i/Xenotransplants.htm
Ethics of Transplanting Organs from Animals to Humans
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_xenotrans.htm
designer babies
The colloquial term "designer baby" has been used in popular scientific and bioethics literature to specify a child whose hereditary makeup (genotype) would be, using various reproductive and genetic technologies, purposefully selected ("designed") to be the optimal recombination of their parents' genetic material. The term is usually used pejoratively to signal opposition to such use of human biotechnologies.
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_cont1.htm
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_eth.htm
britain news
http://www.infowars.com/print/science/uk_designer_babies.htm
an example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/955928.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/babies_prog_summary.shtml
ethics for DB(catholics stand)
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/102299/102299j.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is now used to refer to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals."[11] For others, the word has a pejorative connotation, implying torture and suffering.[12] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation."[13][14]
Debate on vivisection
http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4191
Quotes regarding animal testing
http://animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Quotes/SortQuotesVivis.htm
American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)
http://www.aavs.org/
Cloning
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
Human Cloning: What’s at Stake
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/kilner_george_2004-10-08.htm
Ethics of human cloning
http://www.globalchange.com/cloneethics.htm
Human Cloning
http://www.globalchange.com/clone_index.htm
stem cell cloning
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201092.html
stem cell research
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html
singapore view
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/Technology/CTrendsTechno-060817.htm
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231543.asp
Bioweaponry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioweapon
http://www.geocities.com/area51/Shadowlands/6583/project346.html
Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation (xeno- from the Greek meaning "foreign") is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another such as from pigs to humans (see Medical grafting). Such cells, tissues or organs are called xenografts or xenotransplants. The term allotransplantation refers to a same-species transplant. Human xenotransplantation offers a potential treatment for end-stage organ failure, a significant health problem in parts of the industrialized world. It also raises many novel medical, legal and ethical issues. A continuing concern is that pigs have different lifespans than humans and their tissues age at a different rate. Disease transmission (xenozoonosis) and permanent alteration to the genetic code of animals are also a cause for concern.
Because there is a worldwide shortage of organs for clinical implantation, about 60% of patients awaiting replacement organs die on the waiting list. Recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of transplant organ rejection have brought science to a stage where it is reasonable to consider that organs from other species, probably pigs, may soon be engineered to minimize the risk of serious rejection and used as an alternative to human tissues, possibly ending organ shortages.
Other procedures, some of which are being investigated in early clinical trials, aim to use cells or tissues from other species to treat life-threatening and debilitating illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, liver failure and Parkinson's disease. If vitrification can be perfected it could allow for long-term storage of xenogenic cells, tissues and organs so they would be more readily available for transplant.
There are only a few published successful xenotransplant procedures. Some patients who were in need of liver transplants were able to use pig livers that were on a trolley by their bedside successfully until a proper donor liver was available[1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation
http://www.uncaged.co.uk/xeno.htm
The Xenotransplantation Debate
http://biotech.about.com/od/bioethics/i/Xenotransplants.htm
Ethics of Transplanting Organs from Animals to Humans
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_xenotrans.htm
designer babies
The colloquial term "designer baby" has been used in popular scientific and bioethics literature to specify a child whose hereditary makeup (genotype) would be, using various reproductive and genetic technologies, purposefully selected ("designed") to be the optimal recombination of their parents' genetic material. The term is usually used pejoratively to signal opposition to such use of human biotechnologies.
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_cont1.htm
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_eth.htm
britain news
http://www.infowars.com/print/science/uk_designer_babies.htm
an example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/955928.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/babies_prog_summary.shtml
ethics for DB(catholics stand)
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/102299/102299j.htm
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Blog Task:
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
Research
Legislature OKs same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto
Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions and domestic partnerships
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
Gay Parents: Less Than Optimal?
From wikipedia, it states that same-sex marriage is a term for a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Other terms for this type of relationship include "gay marriage", "gender-neutral marriage," "equal marriage," "lesbian marriage," "homosexual marriage," "single-sex marriage," and "same-gender marriage".
According to dictionary.com, practical means of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals, consideration means careful thought; deliberation, while globalisation is the growth to a global or worldwide scale.
In this age of globalisation, more countries are now more open with homosexuality, and therefore, same-sex marriages are much more accepted in the world. The first legal same-sex marriages was officially allowed in The Netherlands 1 April 2001, the first nation in the world to do and subsequently after that it was allowed in countries Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, USA, South Africa and Spain.
Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship.
In the age of globalisation, same sex marriages are not a practical consideration as it is a society taboo that gays are placed in the position as normal parents raising a child. To many, it is not normal, rather against nature as a normal family would consist of a daddy, a mummy and a child, rather than two daddys or two mummys and a child, therefore gay parenting is not widely accepted in this age of globalisation. Also, many feel that when a child is being raised in a two-parent gay or lesbian household, he or she will have to bear not only the stigma of being adopted but having gay parents adds more issues, confusion and judgement from outsiders.
Same sex marriages are not a practical consideration as most religions like the christians, Islams do not support same sex-marriages. They believe that God has created male ad female so that they could procreate, therefore same sex marriages is seen as something which is abnormal and going against the will of God. Moreover, marriage is seen as something that is sacred and by allowing gay marriages would increase the number of non-serious marriages on top of the high rates of divorce. According to Balancedpolitics.com, "marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create" Therefore, same sex marriages are not allowed as it would threaten the definition as well as respect for the insitution of marriage.
Also, by tradition, it led to the beliefs of humans that the ideal family unit is one which consists of a father, a mother and children and any straying from this model is something which is dangerous and not normal. According to the news article, "Can mum, mum and kids make a family?" the author states that "no single model of the family has dominated throughout history. The traditional nuclear family just happens yo be a structure that contemporary society finds stabe and workable." shows that same sex marriages is not a practical consideration as it does not follow the nuclear family trend, therefore it is deemed to be unnatural and a taboo to people.
However, according to About.com, it shows that "most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual." shows that a homosexuals are fit to raise a child and are no different from a heterosexual household.
Moreover, it is harder for a same sex couple to get a child compared to a heterosexual couple. For the same sex couple, they either bring children from their previous marriages with them, finding children through adoption or undergo artificial insemination which is expensive and costly. Moreover, in countries in Singapore, artificial insemination is only subsidized for heterosexual couples. Compared to a child who is born out of the wedlock, the one cared by a homosexual couple will be more loved and they will have his/her interests placed first in their hearts.
Also according to About.com, it also shows us that there "the United States has many children waiting to be adopted. Older children and those with special needs are especially hard to place. Children who fit this category are in foster homes right now with gay and lesbian parents who want to adopt them. It is unfair to the children to deny them permanent secure homes." shows that the children should be our top priority, rather than seeing who their parents is. Even if their parents are homosexuals, it is better off to know that someone is willing care for this orphans, having their interests at heart, rather than letting them feel unloved and unwanted by society.
If we deny the rights for homosexuals parenting, we also deny the child from growing up in a loving family, a condition far better off than being placed in orphanages. Moreover, there is no harm placing a child in a family who is willing to love him/her with all their heart despite them being homosexuals. Most importantly is that the well-being of the child is being taken care off, and that by letting homosexuals adopt children will help reduce the number of kids being abandoned. Also, it is known that homosexuals is also well known for their pink dollars, which is their high purchasing power in society. These gives them an edge over others as they most likely would not encounter financial problems while raising a child up, therefore being able to provide the needs essential for a child's growth.
Therefore, at this age of globalisation, we should have a more opened society and not discriminating and denying them the rights of adopting children just because they are homosexuals. We should instead thank them for giving such orphans a home to stay and a chance to know what parental love is.
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
Research
Legislature OKs same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto
Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions and domestic partnerships
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
Gay Parents: Less Than Optimal?
From wikipedia, it states that same-sex marriage is a term for a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Other terms for this type of relationship include "gay marriage", "gender-neutral marriage," "equal marriage," "lesbian marriage," "homosexual marriage," "single-sex marriage," and "same-gender marriage".
According to dictionary.com, practical means of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals, consideration means careful thought; deliberation, while globalisation is the growth to a global or worldwide scale.
In this age of globalisation, more countries are now more open with homosexuality, and therefore, same-sex marriages are much more accepted in the world. The first legal same-sex marriages was officially allowed in The Netherlands 1 April 2001, the first nation in the world to do and subsequently after that it was allowed in countries Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, USA, South Africa and Spain.
Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship.
In the age of globalisation, same sex marriages are not a practical consideration as it is a society taboo that gays are placed in the position as normal parents raising a child. To many, it is not normal, rather against nature as a normal family would consist of a daddy, a mummy and a child, rather than two daddys or two mummys and a child, therefore gay parenting is not widely accepted in this age of globalisation. Also, many feel that when a child is being raised in a two-parent gay or lesbian household, he or she will have to bear not only the stigma of being adopted but having gay parents adds more issues, confusion and judgement from outsiders.
Same sex marriages are not a practical consideration as most religions like the christians, Islams do not support same sex-marriages. They believe that God has created male ad female so that they could procreate, therefore same sex marriages is seen as something which is abnormal and going against the will of God. Moreover, marriage is seen as something that is sacred and by allowing gay marriages would increase the number of non-serious marriages on top of the high rates of divorce. According to Balancedpolitics.com, "marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create" Therefore, same sex marriages are not allowed as it would threaten the definition as well as respect for the insitution of marriage.
Also, by tradition, it led to the beliefs of humans that the ideal family unit is one which consists of a father, a mother and children and any straying from this model is something which is dangerous and not normal. According to the news article, "Can mum, mum and kids make a family?" the author states that "no single model of the family has dominated throughout history. The traditional nuclear family just happens yo be a structure that contemporary society finds stabe and workable." shows that same sex marriages is not a practical consideration as it does not follow the nuclear family trend, therefore it is deemed to be unnatural and a taboo to people.
However, according to About.com, it shows that "most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual." shows that a homosexuals are fit to raise a child and are no different from a heterosexual household.
Moreover, it is harder for a same sex couple to get a child compared to a heterosexual couple. For the same sex couple, they either bring children from their previous marriages with them, finding children through adoption or undergo artificial insemination which is expensive and costly. Moreover, in countries in Singapore, artificial insemination is only subsidized for heterosexual couples. Compared to a child who is born out of the wedlock, the one cared by a homosexual couple will be more loved and they will have his/her interests placed first in their hearts.
Also according to About.com, it also shows us that there "the United States has many children waiting to be adopted. Older children and those with special needs are especially hard to place. Children who fit this category are in foster homes right now with gay and lesbian parents who want to adopt them. It is unfair to the children to deny them permanent secure homes." shows that the children should be our top priority, rather than seeing who their parents is. Even if their parents are homosexuals, it is better off to know that someone is willing care for this orphans, having their interests at heart, rather than letting them feel unloved and unwanted by society.
If we deny the rights for homosexuals parenting, we also deny the child from growing up in a loving family, a condition far better off than being placed in orphanages. Moreover, there is no harm placing a child in a family who is willing to love him/her with all their heart despite them being homosexuals. Most importantly is that the well-being of the child is being taken care off, and that by letting homosexuals adopt children will help reduce the number of kids being abandoned. Also, it is known that homosexuals is also well known for their pink dollars, which is their high purchasing power in society. These gives them an edge over others as they most likely would not encounter financial problems while raising a child up, therefore being able to provide the needs essential for a child's growth.
Therefore, at this age of globalisation, we should have a more opened society and not discriminating and denying them the rights of adopting children just because they are homosexuals. We should instead thank them for giving such orphans a home to stay and a chance to know what parental love is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)