Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (25015)	8/28/2001 9:58:49 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 82486

>>I guess we've lost whatever expansionist urges we might once have had.<< I think we still have expansionist "urges", maybe you've just mis-characterized the nature of them.

To: Lane3 who wrote (25015)	8/28/2001 10:15:10 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

the small farmers who have been bought out The farms are being seized and the farmers are being run off. Sometimes they even burn the farmhouse. It's baffling. Zimbabwe and South Africa both are headed toward an agricultural crisis.

To: Lane3 who wrote (25015)	8/28/2001 10:33:36 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Looks like we have a pattern. Maybe these guys just don't like to go to conferences. <g> U.S. Draws Abortion Line at U.N. Officials May Boycott Session on Children By Alan Sipress Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 28, 2001; Page A01 The Bush administration may refuse to send a high-level delegation to a special U.N. General Assembly session on children next month because of concerns that the final declaration will contain language supporting abortion counseling and services, State Department officials said yesterday. U.S. officials participating in a final round of talks in New York this week are seeking to head off that language as well as clauses that the administration believes overemphasize the rights of children as compared to the rights of their parents. The administration's deliberations about how seriously to participate in the special session beginning Sept. 19 come at the same time that the United States is weighing whether to boycott another U.N. event, the conference on racism opening Friday in Durban, South Africa. The State Department announced yesterday that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will not attend the racism conference because of anti-Israeli statements included in the program. The three-day special session on children is designed to follow up on the 1990 World Summit for Children, which adopted a plan for promoting education, reducing disease, improving health care for women and children and providing better sanitation and food supplies. U.N. organizers say 75 heads of state and government from five continents have confirmed they will attend the session. But Charles Hunter, a State Department spokesman, said the administration remains concerned about how the special meeting will advance this agenda. "We believe the outcome document should be an inspiring and focused one, which renews political will and sets specific, achievable goals," he said. As a result of uncertainty about the final document, Hunter said the administration has not yet determined the level of representation it will have. "The decision about U.S. participation in the conference will be made closer to the event," he said. If top U.S. officials choose to stay away from the special session, it could fuel criticism in Washington and overseas that the Bush team has little interest in international cooperation to combat global problems. Not only has the United States balked at high-level participation in the racism conference, but it also has clashed with other countries during recent conferences meant to stem the spread of small arms and enforce restrictions on the proliferation of biological weapons. But the administration made clear in its earliest days how seriously it takes the issue of overseas abortions when it cut off U.S. funding for international family planning agencies that provide abortion services. "The outcome document [for the special session] shouldn't support or endorse abortion counseling and services for adolescents. The draft does," said a State Department official. Administration efforts to recast the proposed statement have drawn criticism on Capitol Hill. Fifteen House members, led by Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), sent a letter last week to Powell accusing the U.S. delegation to the preparatory talks of "unreasonable and obstructionist positions." "We are deeply disturbed both by the positions taken by our delegation to the preparatory negotiations and by the State Department's use of threatening tactics to force the hand of other participants in the U.N. Special Session on Children," the members wrote. The letter criticizes the U.S. opposition to references to "reproductive health services," which may include abortion in countries where the practice is legal. The House members said this language has already been embodied in other U.N. agreements. Moreover, the House members criticized the administration for opposing language that would use the Convention on the Rights of the Child as the international framework for children's rights. A staffer in Maloney's office said 191 countries have signed this agreement, leaving only the United States and Somalia as holdouts. A State Department official said, however, that U.S. officials consider the "rights-based approach to children" to be inappropriate. The core concern, he said, is "how much emphasis is put on the rights of children that would trump the rights of parents and families. We think the outcome document needs to be balanced." He declined to give examples of cases in which the rights of children could improperly shortchange those of their parents. © 2001 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (25015)	8/28/2001 11:29:05 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 82486

Check out the groups defending Andrea Yates. chron.com Now tell me that this coalition would come forward in defense of a father who killed his five children. Do we detect a bit of a double standard here? Oops, I guess I'm not supposed to be saying that, am I? We all believe in equality, unless we don't.

To: Lane3 who wrote (25015)	8/28/2001 3:40:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think we are deep into facetiousness here, aren't we? :-) I envisioned all the small farmers who have been bought out going for the land. Do you mean American or white African farmers? THe white African farmers might go back. American farmers go there? Not many, I would think. And sun cities sprouting up all over the place for retirees looking for warm climates and affordable homes. There are still plenty of places here in the USA to go to for a warm sunny retirement. And the water is safe, the food is safe, the medical care is good, the cops and bureaucrats are (mostly) not corrupt, AIDS doesn't surround you, and the natives don't kill you because you're American. And flocks of missionaries. Biologists and geologists. ..... Adventurers. Those people go there now. What few there are. Urban parents looking for a nice place to raise kids. ?????. See "here are still plenty of places here in the USA ..." above. Unemployed and underemployed people. Go from a polace with 5% unemployment to one with 85% unemployment? Illegal aliens. They come here, not to Africa. People who buy lottery tickets. Thee's no accounting for lunacy. I was expecting to get arguments on morality, not practicality. Not from me. You'll have to find a leftist to argue the morality of this sort of thing. I guess we've lost whatever expansionist urges we might once have had. I suspect that those people with "expansionist urges" in our past had dim prospects where they were and figured they might as well move west and roll the dice.