THE BRITISH THREAD II

I come from the distant past.

The figures from France show that the popularity of development assistance remains high in the context of the economic crisis. Could this be because people realise that if the economic situation of the rich countries in a global financial crisis is dire, the economic position of poor people in developing countries is even worse? Whatever the reason, public support for development has been consistently high across OECD countries over the past 20 years (see Figure above). Support has never dropped below 70 per cent and reached 90 per cent in many European countries in 2004. The overall trend of support is rising, despite economic fluctuations.
The evidence demonstrates that public support for development aid is high, and it has remained high for the past two decades. Politicians looking for an “easy”cut in their budgets may want to think twice. First, the high support for development aid is reflected in a well organised global civil society that will resist breaches of donor commitments for more and better aid. Indeed, in leaner times, attitudes seem to be more charitable, and redistribution more popular. Second, in times of a global financial crisis, poor people in developing countries need development assistance more than ever. Taxpayers seem to realise this. Their policy makers must realise it, too.

First, in such international forums, national susceptibilities often overwhelm reality, thus preventing constructive debate.

Would you agree that "hard socialism", or even just "ordinary socialism" is complete anathema to Darwinianism?

To what extent is positive discrimination a factor in France.

Does France "dumb down" educational standards so that more people "pass" exams.

Is there a rigorous anti-smoking policy in France?

Do you think Alphaville represents a fair prediction of where control freakery gets to with technology to aid it.

Does France continue to maintain its restrictions on American movies?

What's your investment advice? I get the impression our lot don't know what they are doing apart from trying to keep themselves in office.

Political parties prefer to pay high fines rather than to have an equivalent number of women in their candidates lists.

There's also a tough opposition to it.

I wouldn't say that it is very rigourous, even though they try to enforce the law. It's more that people are trying to respect those who don't want to be bothered with smoke.

Knowing what they can do with technology, I'm very much afraid that it will be the case. But being very optimistic by nature, I hope that my maxim will be true: the worse may never happen..

This is an assertion with no foundation. France never restricted American movies.

Mind to elaborate?

I wondered if you had any signposts for the future. I haven't.

A young boy asks his father..."Dad; what is the difference between hypothetically and realistically"? The father tells him..." Son; I don't really now how to tell you but I can set you up an example". The Father says..."go ask your mother, if she would sleep with another man for one million dollars". The boy says..."I can't ask her a question like that". The father says... "sure you can, just tell her I said it was ok for you to ask". The boy comes back and tells his father that she said, she would sleep with another man for one million dollars.

The father tells him to go ask his sister if she would sleep with a man for one million dollars. the boy goes to ask, and returns saying that she would also.

The father says..."back to the point of the question, son;....Hypothetically, we are sitting on two million dollars...realistically, we are living with a couple of whores".