h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'el...I wasn't aware that the US had a viable "lamb industry"!


We do? Theres' a guy up in Vinemont that raises them.....I think he has about a dozen.

Seriously...I wasn't aware of a "protectionist" policy in the US about lambs. I'm sure...as Listener stated...there are more. I can't imagine what purpose they would serve.

NM

Placating voters in niche industries, perhaps?

On June 21 EC agriculture commissioner Frans Fischler issued a statement claiming that substantial increases in government support for US agriculture severely undermine the credibility of frequent US statements on the need for a global reduction in agricultural support. He also claimed that direct support to US agriculture has increased by 700 percent since 1996.

Those following agriculture issues and the important discussions on agriculture taking place in the World Trade Organisation and the OECD are aware that American government assistance to its farmers remains less than one-half that provided by the EU. The most respected indicator of support to the agriculture sector, the OECD's producer support estimates (pses), provides the following comparisons in its just-released report: in 1999 the EU provided $114.5 billion in producer support which was the equivalent of 49 percent of gross farm revenue. The comparable figure for the US was $54 billion in producer support or 24 percent of gross farm revenue.

The comparable figures for New Zealand are a big fat ZERO. That's right folks, NZ farmers, the world's most efficient, are not subsidised.

Ya' see there! You guys are just WAY to efficient!

If ya'll would get lazy, you're government might give you an assist!LOL

My opinion...trade protection sux. If you don't have product at an acceptable price, your industry dies.

Yes, I'm a FIRM believer in capitalism. If there is no demand, there is no need for a supply.

NM

>>earlier this year the United States slapped punitive tariffs on New Zealand and Australian lamb [. . .] took the protectionist Yanks to the WTO and won<<

what did happen with that? I thought they refused to take them off and that's why Howard went to talk to Bush but that day the terrorist attacks occured and the whole thing was put off. Did they eventually get rid of the tariffs?

What does everyone think of naming the "war" project "Infinite Justice"? Seeing as, the only person who can actually have infinite justice is that thing that may or may not be God, do you think it's just likely to inflame the religious nature of the whole deal?

...which is why it's now called Operation Enduring Freedom. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1563000/1563722.stm for more.

ok loony,

Bird, shoe-polish, or fruit take your pick.

STILL think it is lame. Call me a Yankee to my face and it would hurt I promise.

I agree, Yankee is simaler to the word n****r, in that it should not be used. Both are derogitory word used origonaly. Both words are claimed to be "our word," but that is being hypocritical, so EVERYONE should stop using it.

I think one is getting into US regional seminatics. I would much rather be called a Yankee (I have no problems with it) than a n____r which I have lots of problems with.

Hey all, I thought we were talking about "Love Islam, Hate America?". We seem to be a little off track. How about someone comment on this:

Is the question of love vs. hate related to the fact that in Arab countries there is little or no difference between Islam the religion and their respective governments - that is to say, Islam is the government. In the States (and most Democracy's/Republics) there is clear separation between church and state - governments are secular. So if you're in an Islamic country and you see the American government do something you don't like, you assume it's an affront to religion. On the flip side, secular governments can't see why the hate persists since their view doesn't conjoin religion and government. Am I making any sense? Thoughts, comments, critiques?

Quick corrections here.
The so called Islamic states are not in fact Islamic states. Mention one and I may offer reasons why they are not Islamic states. The citizenry is overwhelmingly Muslim but those govts respect not Islam or its ways. they are just another bunch of oppresive families in positions of power. I repeat, NONE are muslim govts. But again thats what the media in the west would have us believe. It is NOT true!

If you are talking about ISLAM, thats a different glass of apple juice altogether. You see the difference between Islam and most religions is that its a total way of life. They way one lives in their homes, relates to neighbours, is governed, governs etc. The west on the other hand separate state and religion. So there begins the misunderstanding. By oppressing a Muslim politically, you have actually already touched a religious cord. And that happens a-plenty in the predominantly muslim societies, and its unfortunate (maybe not) that the USA has in some way supported the people who oppress them politically. From Egypt to Kuwait, Yemen to Saudi Arabia. Even Afghanistan to some extent.
Of course there are individuals who have taken matters too far and thus conflict and acrimony becomes part of converstaion. At the core of all this lies the state of Israel which we agree is terrorising Palestinians but we cant seem to do anything about because USA is its main ally. And even there its not religion at war with religion. But rather "OUR" interests versus "THEIR" interests.
I think religion is therefore used as a tool of justification while the real trouble is oppression and trampling of rights.

Perium, here's some free advice. If you plan to visit Aus/NZ etc, leave your comfort blanket at home. With your sad inward-thinking navel-gazing attitude, boxing gloves will be more appropriate.

Ahmed, you confirmed what I was trying to say - only you said it better. You can't get to the root of the problem unless you understand Islam (a way of life) and democracy (a form of goverment that keeps religion at arms length).

On the question of Isreal and it "terrorizing" Palestinians, It probably depends on perspective of history. One could argue the opposite during WWII (not with the Palestinians of course but you get my drift). Why is Isreal so hated - and this goes back to the time before Christ?

Give me a perspective Ahmed.

ShoutTTL

Just a few facts.....
New Zealand America

Per Capita GDP(US$) $15720 $28020

Annual Per Capita1
Rise in GDP 0.80% 1.40%

Average amount of Tariff 4.5% 5.2%(gee, the US is not much higher than NZ, but the amount NZ complains, you would think it would be much worse.....)

The GDP measures how much, in terms of dollars, a country produces. It is displayed here in US dollars, and adjusted for the fact america is larger. I already made my comment on the whole tariff issue. Here are the facts, to prove to you that the one who seems to be against the USA the most, really doesn't come from a better country, as he claims, but is in fact, slightly behind the times....

"Yank is what happens when the lights go out"

That really should not have been so funny. .

But seriously, I really don't care about the word Yank at all. If someone is contemptuous of another country/culture/race, they can put plenty of contempt behind whatever word they use. "American" can sound just as pejorative as "Yank" with the right tone of voice. I don't care if someone calls me Yank nastily, it just means that they don't know me. (Anyone who wants to call me a nasty name after they know me usually stick to C**t)

As for Brit television, I love most of it that I've seen. Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder...My husband never misses Cavanaugh QC, if I could find it on DVD for him I'd make it a christmas gift, he *adores* it.

As to the Democracy/Islam thing...I tend to agree with Ahmed. The people who call the shots seem to be more about power and control than faith. Much as I imagine things would be here if Jerry Falwell or Pat Buchannan were elected president. "Handmaid's Tale" anyone?

I also tend to see the conflict as a cultural one. We neither understand the other. Most women over here that I know tend to believe that Muslim women who wear the Hijab are to be pitied, even if the Muslim women wear it by choice. The think that the Muslim women are being repressed and too stupid to know it. I believe that such an attitude comes from our overall ignorance of what Islam really is.

In fairness, we tend to take the same view of Christian women who only wear long dresses, long hair, no makeup, and call themselves "surrendered wives." Repressed and too stupid to know it.

I myself don't feel too eager to continue putting my own interpretation/cultural beliefs onto others. Now, that cover up stuff is *not* my style, and it is not something that I would *ever* choose to do. If someone else does choose it though, of her own free will...well...who am I or anyone else to tell her she is wrong?

I guess for me free will becomes the fulcrum. It seems that women over here largely have it, and women over there largely do not.

I'm rambling now and not sure where I'm going with this...

More than a decade after losing power, Margaret Thatcher's blast at Muslim attitudes to terrorism shows the "Iron Lady" retains the power to enrage enemies and polarise debate. The former prime minister found herself under heavy fire yesterday for criticising the response of Muslim leaders to last month's attacks on the United States.

It was vintage Thatcher: forthright, bound to offend and calculated to appeal to die-hard fans.

"The people who brought down those towers were Muslims, and Muslims must stand up and say that that is not the way of Islam," she told the Times newspaper. "Passengers on those planes were told that they were going to die, and there were children on board," the 75-year-old former Conservative leader said. "They must say that it was disgraceful. I have not heard enough condemnation from Muslim priests."

Muslim leaders in Britain were quick to remind Thatcher that they had indeed weighed in against the September 11 attacks. They said their moderate views had not been reported in the media, which preferred to cover the outbursts of hardline Muslim clerics who backed Osama bin Laden.

Zaki Badawi, principal of the Muslim College in London and former Imam of the London Mosque, said every mosque in Britain, except two run by prominent extremist clerics, had condemned the attacks. "Mrs Thatcher has not been well informed, but it is perhaps because our comments have not been sufficiently reported," he said.

Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament, a British-based pressure group, added: "She is completely out of touch. All the major Muslim organisations immediately condemned the attack."

Michael Heseltine, a former Conservative cabinet colleague and long-time political enemy of Thatcher, said he found it "difficult to find words to describe my horror" at what Thatcher had said. "Quite clearly, there was very substantial condemnation from the Muslim world." he told BBC radio.

A British Muslim newspaper, the Muslim News, called for Thatcher to be prosecuted for her "defamatory and irresponsible remarks against Muslims". Its editor, Ahmed Versi, added that her remarks were "deliberate and provocative at such a sensitive time".

Thatcher's comments come as Prime Minister Tony Blair makes strenuous efforts to persuade Muslims that the US-led fight is against terrorism, not Islam. But Thatcher, who won three consecutive elections while Blair has only won two, can still command attention in Britain, just as she could before she left her Downing Street office in tears 11 years ago.

It was Thatcher who, during the run-up to the Gulf War, told President George W. Bush's father: "Don't go wobbly on me, George."

More recently, she threw her weight behind Iain Duncan Smith in his successful battle to take over as opposition Conservative Party leader last month. His anti-European views are close to those of Thatcher, who battled to win Britain a big refund from EU coffers. And last May she delivered a speech condemning Blair's Europe policy as a national betrayal.

And all this while we in the US do our best to stop/prevent attacks on Muslims in our country.

At least our leaders understand its' not the religion thats' at fault. The vast majority of our citizens do, as well.

Not all...sad to say...but most.

This would sure be a lot easier if there was a clear target....I guess thats' not going to happen.

NM

Had an odd thought the other day... What if the attacks on Muslims in our country were engineered by insurrectionists/terrorists? I agree that it's very unlikely - it's proven to me daily, sometimes hourly, that the Untied Snakes is full of idiots. But the drive-bys, vandalism, and brutality couldn't have been better planned to arouse hatred and distrust of Americans world-wide.

For an excellent article, check out the September 26th edition of The Onion, and read "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule." Even for those of you who might be agnostic (like me) it's worth your time.

"Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."


Somebody mentioned subsidies earlier. One of my bright ideas was instead of all these farmers growing acres of weeds, why not have them grow acres of weed? (So to speak.) Not necessarily for recreational purposes - hemp can be made quite easily into wood alcohol, and we need a good cheap source of wood alcohol to burn. Even if we didn't grow hemp, we could be growing corn, which can also be made into alcohol... I suppose if we were to sell it as a fuel, it would have to be treated to prevent people from drinking it.


Oh, and while you're at the Onion, read "U.S. Vows To Defeat Whoever It Is We're At War With."

Thanks Lentilla for directing me to Onion. I have never been there before and it is most interesting.

Beth