Legba Posted May 25, 2006 even if johnny ( ) ate a piece of Marge Simpson's 'three-eyed fish'... NO NUKES! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanika Posted May 26, 2006 (edited) Ever wondered why people like Packer and Murdoch are so keen to dominate the media. Its so they can make you believe what they want you to believe. These businessmen make much more money under a Liberal system than a Labour system. Yeah unfortunately this had been the case for a while in australia and in the past they have done the same thing with labour (think Packer chumming up with Hawke in the eighties). Frank Packer was a pitbull with this sort of thing in the newspapers and Kerry just continued the legacy with television and womens day (a magazine probably designed to keep women at home making babies, knitting and baking cakes instead of educating themselves on politics and career). Politicians essentially just manage policy, businessmen direct and push those policies. Women create, men destroy. sabertoothI believe the higher authorities just choose not to release these types of energy into the mainstream yet because it'll destroy their 100 billion dollar crude oil and nuclear companies they own Exactly, oil and nukes will be used up till the last drop whether you like it or not with newer technologies released incrementally as they become more economically viable and older energy becomes less viable, and their control retained in a centralised manner (the big energy corporations). Its a bit like mobile phones; the market is geared to release technology slowly and incremently so you keep updating your phone for smaller improvements in technology, whilst the manufacturers and carriers run off with truck loads of money. The future of energy IMHO will likely ential energy production that ties in with infrastructure development - things like massive hydro electric dams, massive wind turbines, massive thermal heat powerplants, massive wave action rigs, massive hemp farms?? ... the people who own the world are the ones building the world. Edited May 26, 2006 by botanika Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themagicmushroom Posted May 26, 2006 My feeling is that we need to come to terms with and intergrate the technology before we can evolve to the next step... sorta like a teenage pot habit, or dealing with personal issues, but on a species scale... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rev Posted May 26, 2006 (edited) and womens day (a magazine probably designed to keep women at home making babies, knitting and baking cakes instead of educating themselves on politics and career) im not liking that magazine but i fear the opposite somehow staying at home and making babies is becoming equated to failure and that all women should be in the workforce Some women have babies and go back to work after 6 months - even putting newborns in daycare. going through 2 new recent additions i cant believe they can do this! our daughter is 2 1/2 and only now do we think she is old enough to go to daycare its a perverted situation supported by a govt that just wants us to work more for less and pay more tax to their coffers their idea of 'encouraging' women to join the workforce is as usual 'co-ercing' by a bully 3rd party "employment service provider' which out here means driving or hitching (yeah no relaible bus service) 55km to Casino by 9am to check in at the jobseeker kiosk and see the JNP (read Parole officer) all that costs money and doesnt get re-imbursed by the govt true encouragemnet would be paid maternity leave of at least 9 months subsidised by the govt and secure tenure for up to 24 months a small price to pay to keep bright women in the workforce AND still creating new citizens for tomorrows govt to tax splitting income tax would help families have more kids too. if the breadwinner earns 50-60K and can split the income 50/50 with a stay at home mum then the pressure would be eased and value increased for her role Edited May 26, 2006 by Rev Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanika Posted May 26, 2006 There is apparently some research that shows a direct correlation between education of women and the progress of a society - its easy to see in some countries but harder to verify in countries like Korea and Japan that are relatively progressive on a business scale but women are still very much submissive to men. I was trying to be humouress with the womens days mag comment but either way its certainly been a successful and exploited market for the Packer family. I might not have had so many chocolate coco-pop crackles as a kid without it :D And to think everyone out of africa is supposedly related by DNA monochrome... sibling rivalry for mother earths milk (energy)! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
