You don’t really know if a country is a democracy until a transition of power is indicated. You don’t know who really controls a company until the players have a dispute. We have had multiple transitions of power for 200 years. We qualify.
That’s a pretty low standard. What if you transition between two groups which are barely different, what if politicians are so detached that barely half of the population shows up to vote, what if 90% of those who show up have no clue on the issues, let alone on where the candidates stand on the issues, what if it is near impossible to run for office and get your message out if you do not belong to an already existing party, what if less than half of the voters vote for the winner (this has been the case in Canada forever, and in the US the past three votes thanks to Perot and Nader). Look around to all the “democracies” you know about, and see how many of them fail at one or more of the above.
For the past ten years Canada has effectively had one party, for decades the US has had two. But it’s not about the countries or their parties, it’s about how few people are actually interested in the duties of democracy, not just the privileges. And I am afraid that this is not much different in Iraq than it is over here, the big difference is that a few centuries back, while most people weren’t paying attention, some smart people set up the groundwork for our countries to end up being what they are now, places that run not too poorly despite our failings and the failings of our systems. Other countries were not so lucky (ironically in part because some were colonies oppressed by these great democracies) and it’s hard to change that, expacially since office around the world does not seem to attract the same calibre of people anymore, the attributes which make for a great politician can make for a lousy statesman.
“Establishment of Israel, a Jewish state in the heart of Islam. Largely supported by the West and the U.N.”
How is Israel supported by the UN? AFAIK, the UN has tried to censure Israel 30+ times over the years, but the US has vetoed the resolution. The UN’s position is that Israel should give back the land captured in the 67 war, and the reason Hamas is not a terrorist organisation is because the UN deems it to be fighting an occupier.
Well Gerard, you are right. Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all others of course. Thank you Winston Churchill.
The problems you describe are all valid. Democracy is not a pretty or clean process. The making of laws, like the making of sausage is something you never want to watch. The point of government is to get people to get along with each other to the point where they aren’t killing each other, at least on an organized basis. Democracy and the legal system evolved because it gave people the idea that they had a shot at control and justice so that they wouldn’t typically resort to anarchy. This works most of the time.
Maybe my standard is low, but in the countries that meet it you don’t typically find people killing each other in the street.
I suspect in your business you spend most of your time communicating with others. It is the most difficult and important part of a successful organization. It is far more difficult when you are talking about a country rather than a company. Sometimes is seems like nothing ever gets done. Step back and look at what the past 200 years have brought to North America and the past five years to Cervelo. Things really do get done and people benefit. It just isn’t always pretty.
Since so much has been accomplished, do you think I can finally get hold of one of those nifty carbon seatposts for my 2000 P3 prior to IM Lake Placid?
An oilfield the size of ANWR could produce 1.7M barrels a day for hundreds of years. Some estimates say until the year 3720. This is just one field, there are many many more. Why don’t you do the arithmatic?
Where the heck do you get your numbers, or do you just make them up? Here’s Gail Norton, Secretary of the Interior, whose not quite a friend of the environment:
“The Administration firmly believes that we can develop energy at home while protecting the environmental values we all hold dear,” Secretary Norton said. “The Coastal Plain of ANWR’s 1002 area is the nation’s single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR’s 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the lower 48 states.”
“ANWR could produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil, while Texas produces just more than one million barrels a day, California just less than one million barrels a day and Louisiana produces slightly more than 200,000 barrels a day.”
10.4 billion barrels, divided by 1.4 million barrels/days yields about 20 years. Hundreds of years? What are you smoking? And there aren’t “many many more”, or even “many more”, and possibly not even “more” fields.
Since so much has been accomplished, do you think I can finally get hold of one of those nifty carbon seatposts for my 2000 P3 prior to IM Lake Placid?
Did you ever consider that I may have lost faith in things getting done exactly because of these freakin seatposts? But we shipped out another 300 last week, so we should be pretty close to the end of the line on the 2003 back-orders.
Well Gerard, you are right. Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all others of course. Thank you Winston Churchill. **Who made Winston Churchill the supreme judge of what type of government is the best, or least worst? By which I mean, are you really so certain that a secular democracy of the American sort is so vastly superior to every other form of government developed throughout history that we are justified in going to war to impose it on people? **
Maybe my standard is low, but in the countries that meet it you don’t typically find people killing each other in the street. **Huh? Now that’s a low standard, and one which a whole lot of countries you wouldn’t approve of meet better than we do. **
Step back and look at what the past 200 years have brought to North America and the past five years to Cervelo. Things really do get done and people benefit. It just isn’t always pretty. Art, do me a favor and list what the past 200 years have brought to America. I’m serious- please be as comprehensive as you can.
Since so much has been accomplished, do you think I can finally get hold of one of those nifty carbon seatposts for my 2000 P3 prior to IM Lake Placid? You been hanging out with Tibbs again?
Ken, Not from the Sierra Club. If we stopped oil exploration today, which for all effective purposes we have, then you are right; those known fields can only produce oil for 20 years.
And, you if you read my previous post, you would know that the majority of all productive wells in this country are on private and state land. I am talking about EXPLORATION on federal land and offshore exploration as well. If we were able to pursue a more aggressive oil exploration agenda then we would find many new fields that have output potential far greater than ANWR. There are fields in Canada…I think they call them “oil sand fields” that have immense capacity that could produce millions of barrels a day oil for hundreds of years. No Shit.
Our disagreement is simple. Yours is based on using what we have and forbids new exploration and you are right. My position is to continue to search for new lands and seas that can produce the oil that we need, so I am right too.
No, Churchill is not the authority, just a man who had the ability to turn a phrase to get across a point. I wouldn’t want to quote him without attribution.
I can’t agree with your choice of terms. Freedom is not an imposition. Imposing freedom is an contradiction of terms. I suppose one could argue that we imposed freedom on Japan. I would not.
I am afraid I don’t have the patience to make a 200 year list. Easterbrook’s book makes one heck of a start on it. He steps through it much better than I could.
We most certainly did impose our idea of freedom on the Japanese. Unquestionably. That’s exactly why we insisted on their unconditional surrender; so that we would be able to impose our concept of freedom on them.
Whether or not we think that freedom was, in the final analysis, good for the Japanese, we absolutely imposed it. They would not have chosen it for themselves. And the Iraqis wouldn’t choose it for themselves now, or we wouldn’t still be there. We are in the process of attempting to impose it on them. It may be that we know what’s better for them in the long run than they do, but the imposition remains.
I’m going to toss out the analogy again: Why is it we are so convinced that our concept of freedom justifies military action, when we are so horrified by the thought of forcing a religion on someone? Doesn’t that strike you as somewhat hypocritical?
Sorry vitus, I am afraid you have flat worn me out on this one. I can not view freedom as an imposition in any way shape or form. If the Japanese didn’t “want” it, they would have long since gone back to depotism. I can’t debate this on this forum today. Perhaps another day in another thread.
You hold up your end pretty well for someone with supposedly low SATs.
Question is, how do you get the rest of the country to buy into it? I’m afraid to say that with the approach that has been implemented up to now, and the background to that, I am not overly hopeful. More good people will die because of people in power and their agendas on BOTH sides.
Re: the oil/freedom/saddam/wmd - it’s not just one thing that sent us to war. Why can’t it be conceivable that people pushing for war can say one thing and actually have a different intent or motivation? I think the news articles concerning Clarke’s testimony and accounts of the Blair/Bush meetings speak to that. That’s what annoys me most about the hypocrisy of the people in power. Remind me again how many military funerals the relevant heads of state have been ot so far?
No, Churchill is not the authority, just a man who had the ability to turn a phrase to get across a point.
Sure could. How about this one, referring to his policy in Iraq:
"Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *“I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” "
But we shipped out another 300 last week, so we should be pretty close to the end of the line on the 2003 back-orders.