Boy this is rich, Katz attempting to analyze a serious international conflict with a simple magnifying glass and a limited if not minimal understanding of the history and players involved.
Look, go read a few books on Realism (why? think Condoleeza Rice) and then study a few more on how the history of the People's Republic of China evolved, then read a few more on the contributions of the various leaders involved in the history of the PRC, then examine the Liberal view (this is International Relations speak, not politics) of commerce and it's affect on nation states and their interactions, then go read Kenneth Waltz's "Man, the State, and War," then go spend a few months in China until you understand what motivates the average citizen of China, the average Politburo member, the military leaders, and the the whole dynamic of their government. Finally, educate yourself on negotiations and the language of international diplomacy and why it's so "arcane" as you care to call it. While you're at it, figure out why it's also so effective in avoiding the core challenge of human interaction: blunt language that leads to hot conflicts. Angry diplomats do stupid things and when they do...everything goes BOOM!
When you're through with that mr Katz, maybe then you can provide us with an informed opinion rather than this mindless drivel about "the bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state, and also the reason we will never be so lucky as to see it wither away." What the hell is that? I'll tell you what it is, it's Katz talking about something he doesn't begin to understand.
I won't go into the specifics because I find others have done so quite eloquently in other posts. But let me say that what we consider to be our beautiful world order that is evened out by commerce is in all reality only a plane crash away from evaporating like the mirage it is. The illusion is important because it helps our children go to bed peacefully at night. But the reality is that all nation states maintain their boundaries (physical, spiritual, patriotic, etc)jealously and when they are threatened they don't tend to play nice. Given the opportunity, they'll all play dirty under the covers.
Only an simpering fool would make such a comment. First, the founders established a Democratic Republic and not a democracy for exactly this reason. They wanted to avoid the frightful nature of a dominating majority that might exploit the rights of a strong minority. If you don't believe me, then go pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and educate yourself on what the Constitution really says.
Second, consider the fact that in order to change the voting process (which benefits small states over large states for reasons that this very election makes so obvious), there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. Last time I checked that takes a 2/3's majority in the Senate and then a ratifying vote in 2/3's of the State legislatures. With the Congress split evenly today and unlikely to change anytime soon given the American attention span for all things political, I think we can agree that change is about as likely as snow in hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, go read a few books on Realism (why? think Condoleeza Rice) and then study a few more on how the history of the People's Republic of China evolved, then read a few more on the contributions of the various leaders involved in the history of the PRC, then examine the Liberal view (this is International Relations speak, not politics) of commerce and it's affect on nation states and their interactions, then go read Kenneth Waltz's "Man, the State, and War," then go spend a few months in China until you understand what motivates the average citizen of China, the average Politburo member, the military leaders, and the the whole dynamic of their government. Finally, educate yourself on negotiations and the language of international diplomacy and why it's so "arcane" as you care to call it. While you're at it, figure out why it's also so effective in avoiding the core challenge of human interaction: blunt language that leads to hot conflicts. Angry diplomats do stupid things and when they do...everything goes BOOM!
When you're through with that mr Katz, maybe then you can provide us with an informed opinion rather than this mindless drivel about "the bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state, and also the reason we will never be so lucky as to see it wither away." What the hell is that? I'll tell you what it is, it's Katz talking about something he doesn't begin to understand.
I won't go into the specifics because I find others have done so quite eloquently in other posts. But let me say that what we consider to be our beautiful world order that is evened out by commerce is in all reality only a plane crash away from evaporating like the mirage it is. The illusion is important because it helps our children go to bed peacefully at night. But the reality is that all nation states maintain their boundaries (physical, spiritual, patriotic, etc)jealously and when they are threatened they don't tend to play nice. Given the opportunity, they'll all play dirty under the covers.
Second, consider the fact that in order to change the voting process (which benefits small states over large states for reasons that this very election makes so obvious), there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. Last time I checked that takes a 2/3's majority in the Senate and then a ratifying vote in 2/3's of the State legislatures. With the Congress split evenly today and unlikely to change anytime soon given the American attention span for all things political, I think we can agree that change is about as likely as snow in hell.