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

"THE HAGUE, Netherlands (Feb. 5) - The United States must temporarily stay the execution of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma, the World Court ruled Wednesday"


This is great news to me. The president of Mexico was very upset about the last 2 executions of this type,without the legal representation allowed for and encouraged.

I will be very interested to see the official US response. In the above mentioned article, they admit that there is NO REAL power over the US decisions. It is about time someone tried. We are ignoring some basic legal rights that are assumed to be afforded all.

Too little, too late? Or a good beginning?

Can anyone stop the US from starting a global war? By which I don't mean nuclear bombs and mass destruction. I mean widespread terror, suicide bombings, my mum and dad afraid of leaving the house.

Grrrrr.

""my mum and dad afraid of leaving the house""

How sad
I am more scared than I ever recallabout world politics. I am never encouraged for long. This impending doom is a weight I am conscious of daily.I do not remember experiencing that for this long!

The older generation I know (80'-90's) are scared! Not since WWII they say.... I have never seen many of these people afraid. Mad & disgusted, but not afraid They have also consistently said; we probably have not seen anything yet.

*war*. The fact that it is possibly for the wrong reasons in this case is very disturbing. I hope the UN becomes more of what it was intended to be

It is important that US human rights issues are being questioned.The UN cannot be afraid of the US and remain functional for the world.

Exactly. About time the UN starts acting on its Constitutional principles and point out that the US is contravening to several articles of its Statue.

Where's Xavier Solana when you need him? Bring back Kofi Annan, I say. He was a heavyweight.

We definitely need some heavy weights of a differnt kind! A new breed (tough old guard perhaps) for this nonsense. They are so blatantly and disrespectful, borish and bullish.It is obscene.

some women would be good (and i don't mean the margaret thatcher types)

Yes!

and

I have to disagree with that. If sensible Earth-mothering policies were viable in modern politics, maybe a nurturing, caring-sharing approach would be the best. My point here is that top female players in international politics have learned to play by male rules (see Ms Albright or Ms Rice, or even Ms Rodham-Clinton). The kind of "female" approach to politics that we advocate is a virtual impossibility.

hmm, i'm not sure. there was a debate here (nz) in the early 90s about whether legislating for 50% representation of women in parliament would be a useful thing or not. i think so (though i'd prefer 51%), because even though you would get all the 'tough' women eventually you would also get more of a balance.

the more women in parliament, the more the place has changed. the challenge becomes how to support women and men with nurturing ethics to stay in such weird places as politics.

and i'd still rather have had hilary rodham in charge in the US now than bush (or even clinton)

things are so bad on the planet now, i have to keep a vision of earth-mothering policies (thats such a great term for it!).

The introduction of compulsory quotas in Parliament is in theory a great idea... but in practice is unconstitutional (if men and women have the same dignity and are considered equal, they cannot be considered separately, as if they came from different countries or planets). Of course I would be glad to be better represented (Italy has hit a new low in that respect: only 5% of women in Parliament, resulting in hideous legislation on birth control and artificial fecundation...), but I won't and cannot stand behind an MP who has only been elected because of her gender, and not because of how good she is.

Of course, one could make the case for quotas based on the fact that a lot of female politicians are not considered for office because of their gender. But that assumption is hard to prove.

The question here is, will men ever trust women to be good politicians? Maybe the coming generations will. Given we manage to have any future generations, and are not wiped out by terror, nuclear war or similar.

US women do not vote for women. When they begin to, there will be hope for a change. Women will have to be in place a while to influence things. It will take 30-50 years of women serving to have any general support and trust. There will more than likely be a bigger division amoung the women in politics first, before all evens out. A mutual enemy will be needed no doubt!

Several of the women that have served here, did so after their husbands died in office. They had led the political life for decades, I am sure they knew the game. They were elected by somewhat of a sympathy vote but succeeded in the duties, and were re-elected.

Women Dr.(s) are the same here. They have a long way to go to gain acceptance. Especially surgeons and the traditionally male roles. Medicine is very backwards. The ratio is changing but the attitudes are slow. Quotas help as much as they hurt in the long run.

People had an absolute fit here over a pregnant Governor! You would have thought it was treason!She was good but decided not to run again until the kids are older. Mostly because of all the crap she took in the way of constant *mommy* and husband questions with judgements!

I follow American politics quite closely (I'm a regular reader of Salon and Slate) and I remember the pregnant Governor débacle. I found it quite amusing in a country that invented feminism...

As for wives of senators taking over office after their husbands' death, that's always seemed a bit iffy to me... why does a wife have to be an extension of her husband? Why didn't SHE run in the first place? Why did she have to be an understudy? "Behind every great man there is a great woman" the (sexist) saying goes...

I do agree that gender politics are way ahead in America. Mostly because you agree that there is such a thing as gender politics... Italy is the land that feminism forgot. I get dirty looks when I profess myself a feminist. People still think it implies I want all men dead...

""why does a wife have to be an extension of her husband? Why didn't SHE run in the first place? Why did she have to be an understudy? ""

Yes I agree , however that IS how it got started ! *women in office* Sadly that was a back door to get in! I figure they had a lot of input and opinions *helping* their husbands. It did start a ripple. Odd how those ripples work out


""People still think it implies I want all men dead...""

A lot of people still think that here. It is still.... They are militant lesbians ..Sigh....*shakes head*

It's really worrying that the American electorate, which includes so many people completely ignorant of anything outside their own lives (i.e. the fact that gender is inconsequential when choosing a candidate, only their ability to do the job matters) has such a huge impact on the rest of the world.

Sexism is alive and well. You try living in Italy...

Just a decade ago men were not aloud to cry in public! Several men lost their offices do to crying.

That has changed. Untill it did, womens hormones (emotions) were a huge block to seeking public service positions. Once men were aloud to show emotion without *failing*- they were not so afraid of women doing so in office.

9-11 had all kinds of men crying on TV. The announcers, news guys and politicians. It was refreshing in an odd way, to see the emotion.