Trump’s 5 (so far) nominations for the NPP are for next year’s prize. He won’t get it of course, because we all know that “future accomplishments” are more worthy of the prize than the actual progress he and his administration have made towards peace in the Middle East.
Trump should certainly be in the running due to his progress in the middle east. The Taliban recently endorsed him in his quest for another term. When was the last time peace loving countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and now the leaders of the Taliban all supported a US president for reelection?
4 Likes
Prime Minister Peel repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. The USA was growing an increasing amount of grain and the UK was almost at the stage of producing half of the worlds manufactured output, call it trade.
The Irish lost half the crop of potatoes in 1845 due to Photophthora Infestans and three quarters of the crop for the next seven years.
The British were definitely at fault with their strict adherence to free trade and a work to eat programe put in effect by the Irish Secretary.
If we cast our eye further afield it wasn’t a good time to be a person of colour in the US either in 1845.
2 Likes
Hell, it wasn’t a good time to be poor white [the majority] either but the “people of color” though relatively few were even worse off. People of black color were in another classification altogether, as they were constitutionally not even people with citizenship rights until 1868. Which is ahead of the Aboriginal people of Australia which didn’t become citizens of their own country until 1965 or so, even though they had been there for well over 10 thousand years.
2 Likes
You are right, it’s much better for the ME to stay at each other’s throats and for the US to be bogged down in endless war in Afghanistan.
The US is still ‘bogged down’ in Afghanistan, at least the Taliban is on our presidents side now. But still being in Afghanistan is SOP as the US NEVER leaves any place they fight with the possible exception of Viet Nam. Japan, S. Korea, Germany etc? Still there. Being a rich nation we can afford it.
No there isn’t 88 declared wars simultaneously in the world, nor have there been. If you add armed conflicts and repression to the equation you probably reach that number though.
Besides, although MOST hunger are caused by wars and armed conflicts, there are also hunger caused by natural catastrophes and mismanagement.
WFP also support those kinds.
No nobody “eat electronics”, but a lot of the raw materials needed to make them - and other products that the people in the rich world “need”- are produced by people that work in unsafe conditions at “slave wages”.
There were a lot of surplus “shit” to be had. (Left behind by departing US forces)
Was this “secret”? Soviet Union was a main buyer of US surplus grain for years, before and after 1972. That was well know in the shipping world at least.
If you mean “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”; No I d not and I do not.
They buy also from small hold farmers. (see the "12 things you didn’t know about WFP).
You do realize that for the first time I’m taking the liberal anti-American side and you’re taking the conservative pro business pro-America one. Right?
Again I’ll quote the liberal nytimes:
“ development experts have criticized it for offering contracts to major donors — like the United States — in what has come to be known as “tied aid,” or the practice of tying humanitarian donations to purchasing contracts. ”
Yes 10%.
And what percentage of that 10% small farmer is using montesano seed?
Bug, you are asking a question that perhaps no one knows the real answer to regarding montesano seed. Perhaps someone does, ;;;; the farmers who bought the seed, and the people that sold it to them.
Not so. NOBODY was officially a citizen of Australia until the Citizenship Act came into force in 1949. There was a general concept of being Australian and being citizens but it had no official basis in a law.
We were subjects of the British Queen until her realms were later separated and she is now Queen of Australia for all our purposes (ie separate to the Queen of the UK, or Queen of Canada etc), so we could claim to be British subjects. We simply saw ourselves as Australian but the paperwork hadn’t been tidied up. Nobody particularly cared anyway. We knew who we were.
Aborigines became citizens on the same day everyone else did. They became British subjects from the day of settlement in 1788 and acquired the same rights then too.
There were bumps along the way for the Aborigines as time passed but it is wrong to say that they weren’t citizens at any stage differently from everyone else. There are many myths on this and similar subjects, often perpetuated by the Aboriginal Industry (run by white looking, university-indoctrinated Aborigines) dedicated to obtaining special superior racial rights in the constitution, lots of government freebies, sympathy and a general culture of victimhood. Unfortunately for them, Aborigines have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities as everyone else and the remainder look negatively on any proposal to give them special status.
P.S. The claims nowadays are that Aborigines have been here for 60,000 years. Who knows? They didn’t build much although there’s a lot of ancient rock art.
1 Like
The chemical companies employ psychologists and lobby local politicians to make the farmers buy their seeds and chemical inputs.
1 Like
The variety was called Irish Lumper. Since there was very little in genetic variation, the fungus took hold easily. It was initially a potato grown for animals but punishing measure from the political class in London forced the Irish to eat food meant for livestock.
Growing mono-cultures alone compromises the food supply globally.
1 Like
The US has mostly followed the paradigm of crops as commodities right from the start. Production was always meant for export, like in the early days of the US, when production was sent to Britain.
However, the majority of the world is actually fed via small local farmers. From sources I’ve been reading, it’s a good 70%.
Right now grain is grown mostly to feed stock (cows, chickens, pigs) and for “biofuel”. The fact that the nutritional value of the crops has been lower and lower doesn’t concern the futures traders. The farmer thinks of yield but not of profit per acre or health of the soil.
Warmongers use the same products from the same companies as the industrial farmers. The stuff that was dumped on Vietnam was labelled as a defoliant and was used, for all practical purposes, to starve the enemy. Starve the people and then bring in food. That was the strategy.
Now, next time you use Round-Up on your lawn…
Arbeit Macht Frei.
You know there are mariners on the beach unable to get to work, all over the world, scraping by on whatever work they can get- if they can get any. How about unthaw that frozen heart of yours
1 Like
There’s probably some wagon wheelwrights, fletchers, swordsmiths, weavers and gleaners on the same metaphoric beach too. I’m sympathetic to those without work. What would you suggest I do? Employ them all? My frozen heart is not responsible for the unemployed, tragic as they are. Their governments could help by getting the hell out of the way.
1 Like
So why didn’t the Abos get citizenship in 1949 then? They were where BEFORE the POMs.
(POM = Prisoners of Her Majesty)
They did! … as I said, the same day everyone else did. They never had a different status to the rest regarding citizenship.
And these days ‘Abos’ is considered a very derogatory term. Just sayin’.
Well but the Abos and Thursday Islanders were still not entirely equal to other Aussis:
From this long and detailed history of Australian Citizenship and Immigration Laws:
The requested content has been archived – Parliament of Australia.
Looks like tengineer 1 has a point:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ALRCRefJl/1999/5.html
Everybody in Oz is suddenly following PC rules now?
I thought everything was abbreviated in the Aussie vocabulary? (Example: Footsie = Football)
PS> What about “Pommy”, is that not acceptable term too?
I said, remember,
My topic was ‘citizenship’ and that’s all, not various other things that have discriminated against them previously, BUT NOT NOW.
So I’m absolutely right as to when Aborigines became citizens, (same day as everyone else) but you seem to be inferring citizenship grants a whole series of other rights, ‘the same entitlements’ and that isn’t necessarily so. Voting isn’t granted to all citizens eg at federation in 1901 some Aborigines could vote (eligibility was controlled by the states) including some Aboriginal women whereas some non-Aboriginal women were denied the vote then. Were those rights available in your country then? The USA? They weren’t even available in our motherland, the UK. So forget about the rest, my initial comment was only about citizenship.
Your second reference provides a paragraph backing me up in what I’ve said here.
" The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides little more than a bare definition of citizenship and tells us nothing about its legal consequences. Although its preamble refers to the rights, obligations and liberties of Australia and its people, it nowhere explains what these are. As neither the Constitution nor the Australian Citizenship Act define the legal consequences of the legal status of citizenship"
No. He was wrong and so have you been - it was about citizenship only!
Right, but you misinterpret the meaning of that section. It was designed so that Aborigines could not have special laws about them based on race. In other words, Aborigines were to be considered exactly the same as everyone else. Every law covered every citizen/subject. That’s called equal before the law. Laws based on race can benefit that race, but they can also discriminate against them. Jim Crow? That section of the constitution was designed to be able to cover influxes of foreigners eg Chinese during the gold rushes etc, not to provide specific benefits/detriments to resident Aborigines.
Again, citizenship was not the only basis for granting ‘social rights’ whatever they are. They certainly aren’t ‘rights’. The main authority for Aboriginal affairs was the states, not the Commonwealth and so we had half a dozen or so sets of laws and there’s no easy way to tell you about them all, when they changed, and who they applied to etc.
So now we have a race law ie we can make laws to legislate for a race of people for their supposed ‘benefit’. It’s not good law and overturned the very good concept of the original constitution (drafted by wise Australians with the benefit of looking to other successful nations - UK, USA, Switzerland - and thus superior to all of them 
) that Aborigines would be treated equally before the law regardless of their race. Bad laws made for noble reasons are still bad laws.
No, but if you don’t want to be shrieked at by the wokerati, don’t use ‘Abo’ - or simply plead that you are Norwegian. Even ‘Aborigine’ is getting rarer as various other more PC names have arisen. Lots of things like ‘Indigeneous Australians’, ‘First Australians’, ‘First Nations’, and many other equally hideous words borrowed from more woke nations of USA, Canada and the (more hideous) UN because they invoke a higher plane of civilisation for Aborigines than ever existed prior to settlement. They were stone-age hunter-gatherers living in small, often-warring, nomadic, family or clan groups, not nations.
‘Pommy’ is perfectly acceptable although we mostly prefer ‘Pommy bastards’ such is our healthy, brotherly love for the motherland and their cricket team. They love us just as dearly in return.
Finally, beware of googling subjects like this as most sites are rigorously policed by hyper-vigilant PC types unwilling to allow the full truth to be published. I have multiple references available if you wish.
wokerati
5 Likes