It is all well and good in hind sight to say that is what should have been done. In hind sight it can even be argued that the nukes never had to be used. What it ignores was the reality of the time. The world had been at war for six years. The US had been at war for almost four years. Casualties in the fighting with Japan actually accelerated UP as the end came closer. The US took its worse losses of the war at the END. Every other atrocity had already been committed by every single side. Nukes aren't even worth getting worked up over when you put them next to the genocidal fire bombings the Americans committed or the wholesale rape and genocide that the Japanese committed on the ground to civilians. Further, both sides were considering using chemical weapons for the coming battle on the Japanese mainland. Europe was a mess and needed to be rebuilt. Convincing the few allied military powers still standing to travel half way around the world and fight some more would have been insane.
The world was at a point where every atrocity had already been committed. Not many people blinked at committing one more if it meant ending the war. Further, that one atrocity was a lesser atrocity then ones that had already been committed. The world was tired and had no desire to sustain war any longer. No one was going to listen to arguments that such a weapon shouldn't be used if it meant that everyone's sons could home, no one else would have to die after, and the rebuilding could begin.
So, you can smugly look back and claim your moral superiority in this pristine age where the worst you have to worry about is getting whacked by a car crossing the street. Or you can try and sympathize with a nation and a world that was weary of war, tired of sacrificing their sons to fight wars over seas, and ready to begin picking up the shattered pieces of the world.
I agree with parent. We are clearly going in the wrong direction. What will happen next to ruin our great nation? Will we let negros and women vote? Will we allow inter-racial marriage? Will we allow Orientals to immigrate here and dilute the blood of this great nation? Next thing you know it, it will not be socially acceptable to be a god loving member of the KKK. Well, at least we can rest assure that in no state, not even Massachusetts, will they ever allow sodomizers to get married. This nation is headed down the wrong path. We need to act NOW before the negros, Orientals, and feminist ruin this great nation.
I suggest getting a grip on reality and expanding your outlook of history beyond 8 years. You can spout off whatever you damn well please and no Gestapo is going to beat down your door.
Get a friggin grip. You have to modify the game in order to play your little sex game. Further, there are no nude skins in the game, you need to add those in yourself. To put it bluntly, anyone who can figure out how to hack GTA enough to get the hot coffee mini game working has more then enough knowledge to download all manner of pr0n that makes hot coffee look like British tea.
Further, have you people played this game? After using every single vulgar curse in the dictionary and a few that are not, you can then go on a murder spree. For fucks sake, get some perspective. A sex mini game with your character's clothes on is pocket change compared to the rest of the game. I know we are all Americans and complete fucking prudes when it comes to sex... but really, get some perspective.
BUSH IS A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!!! THAT LITTLE LIMP DICKED FUCK IS RUINING THE NATION. FUCK BUSH. FUCK REPUBLICANS. FUCK THE IRAQ WAR. FUCK THEIR MOTHERS.
Has the SWAT broken into my house yet? Is my Internet connection cut?
I was in DC during the height of the anti-war protests. I remember walking down the street and finding a dude holding a sign which basically was the above, with a few pictures of mutilated civilian corpses on it thrown in for good measure. Another person was handing out anti-war flyers. There were crowds of protestors milling around, chanting, and having a merry old time. The police didn't give a shit. Hell, there were barely any police at all. The few police that were there were either keeping protestors from getting into the traffic or guarding handful of right wing nut jobs dressed up in American flags and holding "Jesus hates liberals and fags, but loves ours troops!" signs.
I have seen KKK rallies (and the accompanying anti-KKK rallies that always follow them), gay pride parades, anti war marches, pro-life protests, and pro-choice protests. At least once a week communist working the street near where I live try and give me one of their newspapers, and if I am feeling bored, we have a merry discussion over coffee as to why the Revolution is well on its way.
Is the system perfect? Hell no. Is it better then most places in the world? Absolutely. Americans don't even understand what corruption is. Most Americans have never bribed a police officer in their life, or even considered it a viable way to deal with a problem with the law. If someone has an opinion, they never think twice about blasting it across the Internet with their name attached to it in blinking colors. Hell, just open up a Slashdot message article in the politics section and watch as Americans merrily babble on about how worthless their government's policies are.
I am sorry, but Western Europeans and Americans who have never left the first world don't understand concepts like poverty, freedom of speech, and representative government. Sure, they understand the dictionary meaning of those words, but their scale is so skewed they can barely recognize how their own nations relate to them. They take for granted what they have and fail to recognize what others don't. If you ever go to a truly poor nation you will realize that poor people are skinny in ways you have never seen, and realize that the 'poor' people in your nation are fat and more likely to die if a heart attack then from starvation. If you go to an oppressive nations you will see people hesitate to even discuss certain topics even when they are not in public when you wouldn't think twice about having a loud debate on the sidewalk.
Get a grip on reality. People in the US and Europe have it good. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is there corruption... well, it is run by humans, isn't it? Does the corruption, oppression, and poverty that takes place in Europe and the US even fit on the same scale as many other nations? Hell - fucking - no.
The US isn't a tiny little piece of the Internet that you can easily cut away and replace. If the US disappeared off the Internet... well, you would notice. The economic damage to the world would be unimaginable. Even if all the economic damage was in the US (which it wouldn't be), that is a solid 1/4th of the worlds economy suddenly unable to speak. There is plenty of room for negotiation; it just isn't going to be with 'the world'. "The world" includes some people that you really DON'T want to have any say over world wide communications.
Further, in race to declare that the US can't control the Internet, you ignored or were ignorant to the fact the US DOESN'T own all of the root servers. There are ones in Stockholm, London, and Tokyo. While all of those places might have a McDonalds, last time I checked, that doesn't make them apart of the US. Further still, of the root servers that are "in the US", many actually exist in multiple locations outside of the US and use Anycast to decentralize the service.
My advice? Take a deep breath and go spend some time in the Wikipedia looking up root servers. The US might be a sizable hunk of the Internet, and it might very well thumb its nose at the idea of letting Syria, Sudan, or China have any say over the Internet in the guise of the UN, but it certainly is cooperating with rest of the world. Cooperation doesn't mean that everyone gets a say. Even if it did mean that, the UN only lets governments have a say. Governments and people are two very different things, especially in some parts of the world. Cooperation means that the US will deal with some trusted nations and exclude others.
"The 12 governmental officials on the 40-person WGIG come from Barbados, Belgium, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Luxembourg, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. The rest are drawn from the private sector, academia and civil society."
Okay, of the 12 nations that had a say in this little report, 4 of them I would give any sort of trust to. China, Cuba, Sudia Arabia, Egypt... really now. Are these the nations you want to have a say over the most important communications tool in the world? Hell, the very fact that these nations are for the proposal is more then enough reason for me to be against it.
"How comes that the same people speaking about democracy and freedom have so much problems to give other nations the right to vote where they are concerned?"
Democracy and freedom have absolutely nothing to do with letting other governments vote on world policy. Only people can have democracy and freedom. China voting in the UN isn't any more 'democratic' then if McDonalds could vote in the UN. Neither organization is democratic, and neither should have a say as to how the people in this world who DO live in democracies should run their lives.
"How comes that the UN has a rather good reputation in Europe and such a bad one in the US?"
During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union tumbled around like two giants with the rest of the world caught in the middle. The US spent its time actively trying to protect and expand its system by any means necessary, and that protection extended to Western Europe. Western Europe at the time was more then happy to have its own super power on its side to keep the Soviet Union away. The Cold War is over. Without the Cold War hanging over peoples' heads, the need to proactively promote democracy is of much less concern to the people of Europe. The US on the other hand is running around with the same zeal that it has for the last 50 years, seemingly indifferent to the fact that the Soviet Union is crushed. If anything, it is almost like the US realized that it just killed their number one foe and have redoubled their attempts to make sure the victory is total.
The trust or distrust in the UN is just a symptom of this, in my opinion. The US is still a super power and it wants to continue aggressively converting the world to democracy. Europe might even agree in principle that a democratic world is a better world. The difference is that Europe is more then happy to let things play out. The slow, bulky, undemocratic, but very stable mechanism of the UN represent the European vision. Anything the UN does isn't going to rock the boat. Anything that all of the permanent members, of security council can agree on something, including the US, China, France, and Russia, it isn't going to be earth shatter or controversial. Under this system where things only happen when everyone can agree, including nations that are not democracies, you get stability and very very slow change. The US on the other hand is dead opposed to this system. It wants the rest of the world to look more like the US, Europe, and Japan yesterday. In any system where China and Russia have veto power, that isn't going to happen any time soon.
I'm not saying one is better then the other. They both have their advantages. The European way IS slow. People will suffer for generations before things are made right if you choose to be so conservative. On the other hand, the US way is reckless, destructive, and has the potential to make things even worse, especially in the short term.
Which view is better? Eh, ask me again in 50 years. Either the US will blast a way to a golden era for the nations that it has touched, like Germany and Japan after World War II, or it will sow the seeds for future conflict with its shortsightedness, like after World War I. Time will tell.
Well, I don't recall that last time the US ran over its own citizens with tanks, then made those who were not outright killed "disappear". I also have never heard of the "Great Fire Wall of the US". Based upon that information, I would venture a guess that he was talking about China.
"Every country is represented at the UN, so you can still call you representative or your governement."
That is all well and good, but that doesn't make it a good government. Right now I can calling my senator and my senator, he can agree to my position, and still be out voted by the senators from Alabama and Mississippi. Granted, I might not like Alabama or Mississippi. I might even think as far as politics go they are roughly as backwards as they come. That said, there is something common in politics that binds us. We all agree to abide by the constitution, and we all agree to resolve our disputes in a democratic political process. I still might not like the outcome, but even if I violently disagree with how the representatives voted, I can at least agree in principle that they were appointed the right way. Is the system perfect? Hell no. Is it pretty coherent for a system that governs roughly a quarter of a billion people over the land area of a third of a continent? Hell yeah.
Now, the UN is an entirely different beast. I do NOT agree in any way shape or form with how the UN representative from China or Syria was selected. I do not agree even vaguely in principle. Even the most basic and fundamental givens from my political system like 'freedom of speech' do not apply to these nations. Now, you want ME to agree to letting these people legislate for me?
There is not a chance in hell I would be for letting the UN have any say or tax over the Internet. If the UN wants to act as a place to setup up treaties to deal for law enforcement, great. If you are suggesting that a nation like China or Syria should have even a little say in the running of the Internet as a whole, you are out of your mind. They are more then welcome to firewall the hell out of their own nations, throw dissidents in jail, filter out website with any mention of the words "democracy" or "Taiwan", or whatever makes them feel safe from their own people. They can run over their own people with tanks for all I care, so long as it stays inside their borders. They can not and will not have any say over what happens inside of the United States, ESPECIALLY when it comes to a medium that is built around speech and communication.
If they don't like it, they can build their own Internet and convince people to use their servers.
I can't recall where I saw this quote. Might have been on a Slashdot actually. Whatever the case, it goes:
"Remember, Republicans are the evil party and Democrats are the stupid party. If they ever both agree on something it is both stupid and evil."
Just the other day I was hanging out with two Republican women. They know that bitching about "liberals" is pretty safe around me because I am libertarian leaning in politics. They were bitching about how "liberals want to force their values on you". I laughed and said, "Right, because republicans are against 'forcing values'... so long as we are not talking about social freedoms." The two shut up.
If you ever want to be on the fun side of a debate, just be a Libertarian. You can join one side in blasting the other, then promptly turn around and blast the people you just agreed with, without any hypocrisy.
Great... The dems and the reps can legislate morality together. Oh merry day. That said, I actually agree in princple. A nice ultra-leftist president with a slim republican majority in both houses. With any luck they wouldn't be able to get anything done. Really though, I think the best solution is simply to change the voting system. Don't do anything fancy, just add one more canidate to all the lists. Let "no" be a canidate. I would vote for "no".
Err, you might want to take a better Constitution party. They are very much against socialism... but they have the small problem being very xenophobic and wanting to combine the Church and the State. If you crank a Democrat all the way over to his logical extremes and you have communist with no interest in cultural issues, then if you crank a Republican all the way over you have the Constitution party.
Honestly, if you don't like who is running, vote for the guy that you feel closest to who isn't a Democrat or Republican. Unless the Democrats pull a candidate who is all for social freedom and can at least suppress their impulse to spend, or the Republicans pull a more libertarian minded person from their ranks who can both resist the impulse to spend AND avoid trying to bring me to Jesus... well, I'll be voting Libertarian.
Personally, watching these elections is killing me. It used be that you could at least count of Republicans to hold the economic line against spending everything they have and then some, and you could count on the Democrats to beat the religious conservatives back into their churches and stop legislating morality. These days though it seems like each party has taken on the worst of the other. Republicans are in control of the government now and are burning through money like it is going out of style. The Democrats on the other hand seem to be utterly incapable of taking a stand against the legislation of morality. Hillary trying to 'save the children' is a perfect example. Setting up censor boards to protect our morality is the kind of bullshit I expect out of religious conservatives.
Would I want a true Libertarian in government? Hell no. Libertarians don't have a plan for winning. If they ever won they wouldn't know what to do. Abolishing the IRS sounds great when you are speaking to a group of people in a rural town hall and everyone has a gun rock in their pickup truck, but the reality is that you really need a little more planning then that.
Further, they need the ability to take on compromise positions and let not-so-important positions slide. In principle I might believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves without interference so long as they only hurt themselves. Does that mean we really need to legalize crack immediately? If the Libertarians really wanted some creditability, they would take some reasonable positions that the mainstream could potentially swallow. They can save preaching the rest of their whack-job positions for later.
That said, I will vote Libertarian. If nothing else, it is a like waking into the voting booth and voting No. Further, you clarify that you are not voting for either Republican or Democrat because you don't care or are lazy, but because you really just don't like Republicans or Democrats - which in my opinion is a far more effective form of protest.
I really don't see the issue. If the rest of the world wants their own Internet... they can go build it. There is nothing stopping the rest of the world from building their own system and simply ignoring the US run Internet. Hell, the lines are already there in most countries.
What it boils down to is that the US will never give up the Internet to the UN. The US doesn't trust the UN. If NATO was more of a civilian organization and less of a military organization, you might actually have some success in getting the US to hand over the keys to them. The US simply will not hand over the Internet to an organization that has members that are the other side of the world when it comes to even basic ideology. The US is utterly imposed to China, Syria, Sudan, or whatever tin pot dictators you can think up having ANY say.
Surely you can argue that the US is responsible for the creation of some of these nations with 'questionable' governing practices. That doesn't change the fact that it wont empower then any farther then the function of their creation. Afghanistan is a perfect example. The Soviets invaded, and because the Soviets were the enemy of the US, the US was more then happy to train and arm people who in the normal course of things would never have been able to receive any favorable dealings from the US. The justification was of course that it is the selection of the lesser of two evils. Better a few crazy religious nuts running around small third world nation then to allow the Soviets to expand their influence and threaten the rest of the world. It is an unenviable position to be in. You can have ideals, but the reality of it is that the world is gray and, as the UN shows more clearly then most organizations, ideals get compromised. No idealistic democracy would let the Soviet Union or China have veto power in any sort of world body.
So, is dealing with the UN and sitting on a council with less then democratic nations dictating world policy a compromise in ideology? Sure, but it is a necessary compromise. The US needs to deal with the rest of the world, even nations that it is ideologically opposed to. That said, I would act surprised when the US only deals with them only so far as necessary. Handing over the key to the US and world economy and communication systems to a world body made up of less then democratic and friendly nations is one compromise the US doesn't need to take.
Personally, I think that what the world needs is a new 'world body' that is exclusive to democratic nations that meet a certain criteria. Have the criteria reviewed every year by an independent body, then tie in a pile of trade incentives to join. I imagine such an organization would be significantly more capable conducting affairs like these and spur democratic growth.
This is almost like reverse 'US politicians are going to eat me syndrome' from the US where whenever a stupid bill is proposed a dozen posts pop up threatening to move to Canada.
Breath.
The bill has not been passed into law. The bill has been vaguely considered. The likely scenario is that some crotchety old bastard who doesn't even own a TV in the northern wastelands of Canada who was elected by his four neighbors, which live 100 miles away (giving him a solid 90% of the vote), was given a wet dream bill by a lobbyist going through the motions to receive his paycheck. Someone politician owns a computer a thousand blood thirsty lobbyist representing any industry hurt by said bill are going to descend upon the capital and decry the bill as the music industries attempt to trying to eat Google, libraries, and small children. The liberals are going to recoil in disgust at the realization that bill might help the music industry, and the conservatives with a hard on for Google or some other corporation will promptly decry the bill as undue government interference. It will then be completely lobotomized and be reworded to either say, "It is illegal to provide copywrite information location tools powered by babies pulled from their mother's wombs" or turned into a poison pill of a bill and be reworded to say, "Canada will construct a tower of dead babies from which the music industry can lord over the small people of Canada as Gods".
Whatever version they pick it will be written in both French and English.
Both sides will make long winded speeches that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. These speeches will get chopped up and put into campaign literature.
The campaign literature will also be in both French and English.
It will be a unanimous voted on either way, either against making a tower of dead babies or for making it illegal to run a device powered by dead babies. Whatever the case, at the end of the day, the political system will defeat this bill in its own kludgy and ham-fisted way.
So breath, no one has to move to the US to escape the iron fist of the Canadian government.
I think his point was that an armed civilian revolution is a near impossibility these days. Places where the government is over thrown by violence almost always are overthrown by the military... hence why the world has so many military dictatorships. The USSR was no exception. The civilian population had very little to do with the revolt, and almost the entire thing was conducted by the military.
Now, that is not to say that you can't still oust a government with popular protest, but the application of that one is limited to places where the government is willing to show a little restraint or the government has a weak control over the military. Try a popular protest in South America and you might have some luck. Try the same thing in North Korea and you are going to have to use bulldozers and dump trucks to remove all of the civilian bodies.
Put another way, can you name the last nation to create a democracy in an armed civilian revolution against the military?
You are right in that the UK people have already paid for it. That is not what people have a problem with. It isn't that people paid for it, it is that people were forced to pay for it. They are complaining that the BBC, unlike a normal corporation, can collect payment for goods and services by force (taxes). Further, the BBC can collect payment for goods and services regardless if people even take the goods and services. It would be like if McDonalds charged nothing to eat there, but sent a bill to everyone in the nation for the cost of all the food consumed and could throw you in jail or confiscate your property if you refused to pay. Good for people who like McDonalds? Sure. You could go to McDonalds every single day (not that I would suggest it) and eat yourself stupid. Good for people who don't eat at McDonalds or competing restaurant chains that have to convince their customers to pay the old fashion way? Hell no.
Every time you have an industry collect money through tax collection competing against a privately funded industry that has to collect money through voluntary sales transactions, the privately funded businesses get hurt. The real question is how much your society is willing to tolerate that state of affairs. It is a good thing to have government monopolies like this in the sense that you ensure everyone gets access to that good or service and can distribute the cost of it. It is bad in that you kill off the vast majority of competition that might have produced a better or cheaper product, simply because they can't compete with free.
If you want a shining example of this, compare American TV to British TV. American TV only has the barely funded (especially compared to the BBS) PBS to compete with. As a result, Americans have a lot of home grown TV stations, significantly higher production quality, and a wider verity of choices in terms of viewing. Now, the quality is certainly debatable and subject to taste, but in terms of things like production value and choice, the difference is stark.
I don't see any resident of Switzerland, Japan, or Hong Kong shipping themselves on crates to U.S., does that mean the U.S. is not a superpower? Residents of rich countries don't ship themselves in crates to other rich countries.
I don't see any resident of Switzerland, Japan, or Hong Kong shipping themselves on crates to U.S., does that mean the U.S. is not a superpower? Residents of rich countries don't ship themselves in crates to other rich countries.
You are right, you don't see them shipping themselves by cargo crate anywhere... which is exactly my point. This is an impoverished nation, despite what the local elite my tell you. It is impoverished to such a level that your average American will never be able to comprehend how bad it is for some people there. This is the reason why you don't find Americans, Japanese, and Swedes taking suicidal risks to escape the nations they are in. Even for the lowest of the low in these nations, it isn't bad enough to justify risking life and limb getting to another nation. Your average American and European can't even begin to understand true poverty, which is why when people say stuff like "China is poor", they shrug and go "Yeah, but so are parts of New York."
China is no threat to the world in terms of economic might. China is a mess. The government is wildly ineffective and completely incapable of reacting in the world market. China has one thing going for it - a billion people without TVs or jobs. Basically, what they have going for themselves is a lot of impoverished people... not exactly an ideal place to be.
Finally, you need to understand that as China rises and becomes richer, it will be harder and harder for China to grow. China might be enticing when you can get workers for a little more then the cost of feeding them. However, what happens when they start demanding even a fraction of the wages anywhere comparable to an American or European? What is the competitive advantage locating in China can offer? Corrupt government? Poor utilities? Labor with low productivity? Tight business regulations? Government monopolies? China is cheap and that is it. Once China stops being so cheap, all of that production is going to take a hike to Africa or some other impoverished area of the world.
If there is any silver lining, for China, once they stop being so cheap and companies begin to move out, China might very well have to change. They might be pushed into to dealing with corruption, regulations, government monopolies, their inept governing system, and all the things that make China a less then utopic place to do business. They probably will not become a democracy over night, but I imagine the economic wall they are going to run into might provoke the middle class force some changes.
Did you even read what I said? The point is that people are NOT playing by the book.
As far as 'rogue' nations that don't play by the book, by rogue, do you mean every single nation that isn't Sweden or the Netherlands? By your rules most of Africa, China, Russia, every single Middle Eastern Nation clearly are 'not playing by the rules'. France, Germany, England, a smattering of other European nations and the US all also fail to 'play by the rules'.
So... I guess you are arguing that Sweden and the Netherlands declare the rest of the world rogue nations and refuse to deal with them?
Isn't the point of getting to the top to be able to sit in your basement doing crap like this if it tickles your pleasure? If Americans have a problem, it is fucked up priorities. I have known far too many people that devote their lives entirely to work. Working 80 hours a week is justifiable if that is how much you have to work to survive. It is insanity if you have already trounced the middle class line in the US and could own a modest compound in any other developing nation on the same budget. America has the world most productive workers, and they just keep getting more productive. The rest of the world, even long since developed nations like those in Europe, lag behind.
I am not saying I don't appreciate the guy whose life is work, as he is responsible for lower costs, more technology, and all the things I like to receive. My point is that I sure as hell wouldn't want to be him. 40 hours a week plus a few extra when things get tight is fine. Making your life work and forgetting that you only work to live, well, that isn't for me. I am not saying I don't enjoy my job to an extent. Of all the things I could be doing that someone is willing to shell enough money to live off of, I love what I do the best. That said, if someone dropped 10 million in my lap, I would quit the next day without a second thought.
If the Chinese, Japanese, or whoever beat past the US by working 80 hours a week after enduring decades of school... fuck, they can have it. I can live with buying the shit they make if it means I don't have to sleep in my laboratory.
I hate to be the wet blanket, but I really don't see this as being terribly useful. Does it sound like fun? Sure. If making renewable energy more of a reality is the goal though, this seems like a waste of funds. Solar cars will never be a reality. It doesn't matter what you do, there is a finite limit on how much energy hits the surface of the earth per area, and it isn't a lot.
That is not to say that we couldn't make solar powered cars that would fit most people's driving needs. This contest certainly shows that you can get a human from point at A to B just the power of the sun, but the sacrifices you make to get there is the real problem. Even if you could be content with the dramatic power reduction, the elimination of most luxuries, and the dramatically reduced hauling load, the safety 'compromises' are simply unforgivable. These cars would be moving coffins even on European streets where the cars are smaller and lighter. They are death traps waiting to happen on American streets.
If a university wanted to set up a competition really worthwhile, the competition would be to produce the solar cells with the highest power/cost ratio over a long period of time given a certain size constraint. Or even better, have them develop a solar cell with the highest power/cost ratio possible that can act as roofing tiles and survive some stress testing. Solar cells are still too costly to get them to really eat a sizable chunk of our power needs. If someone really wanted to do something great, they would work towards make ultra cheap, durable, solar cells. With those, not only can you eat some of our power costs, but things like hydrogen fuel cells truly become 'green', instead of just changing where the polution is coming from.
I agree with parent. Is there really a need to compare Bulgaria to Missouri? I have been to Bulgaria and it really is not that bad such that you need to compare it to Missouri.
I agree. If you do all of those things, terrorism will likely never be a problem in your nation. If everyone played by those rules, you probably would eliminate almost all conflicts.
So what happens when someone breaks those rules?
If Nazis are incinerating Jews and everyone else who doesn't meet their racial specifications, do you do anything to intercede? What if they go ahead and invade every nation on their border? Can you intervene then? Was Britain and the US wrong to get involved in World War II according to your 'recipe'? What about Korea? Would the world be a better place if the US hadn't gotten the UN to defend South Korea and the entire pensile was under the lovable leadership of the North? Was the US and Western Europe wrong to oppose the Soviet Union? Would the world be a better place if half of it was in the hands of the Soviets?
Your recipe is cute, but it blatantly ignores the realities of this world. The reality is that you can follow this recipe. Many nations in fact do, and as you say, they generally have no problems. The issue comes with the nations that ignore your recipe. Should other nations then go ahead and stand up and beat them back down like they did in World War II? If so, how many rules does a nation need to break before you intervene? Germany and Iraq both broke all of those rules with the possible exception of the economic one. Did they both deserve to be invaded? Did just one deserve to be invaded?
You might as well have just stated that cure for violence is for no one to be violent. That might be true, but it is an utterly worthless tip for those of us living in reality.
"That is from the CIA world fact book, admitedly the poverty line definition is probably different."
I love that CIA fact book. However, you are right to point out the 'poverty' is very different in the two nations. Impoverished Americans do not die of starvation. They die of heart disease because they are fat. An impoverished American is well fed but slightly malnourished. 'Well fed but possibly malnourished' sure as hell is not the definition of impoverished in China. The definition of poverty is defined by the government, and a government as obsessed with image as the Chinese government is going to set definition of poverty such that few make it in, so you can display figures like that the US has the same poverty rate as China. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if China pegs its definition of poverty such that the percent always matches the US.
Next, you need to realize that China has so much growth because its population is so damn poor. When you have 1.3 billion people and most of them don't have TVs, much less DvDs yet... well, you are talking about a potentially huge market. However, once that market has been fulfilled, what is next? This is the part of the 'China is the next super power argument' that always baffles me. What on earth does China have that could possibly let their people become as wealth as the US and Europe? China has poor utilities, an amazing corrupt and bureaucratic government, and a xenophobic culture. China has nothing over the US and Europe other then that they are cheaper and have fewer environmental regulations. China can only remain cheaper as long as they are poor. If they are no longer poor, they have nothing to offer. US and to a lesser extent Europe will continue drain China and the rest of the world of their elite simply by offering up open societies that easily adapt to immigrants. China on the other hand is only going to receive immigrants from even more destitute neighbors (AKA North Korea) and will have a very hard time convincing a Europeans or Americans that China is the place to go for grad school - much less convince them to live there for the rest of their lives.
So, will the US be eclipsed one day? Sure. Will it be by a closed, inhumanly bureaucratic, xenophobic society? Hell no. India has a better shot then China because they at least have a system capable of changing itself. The EU could have a shot if it could get its shit together and stop cowering in terror at the thought of the culture of the individual nations being 'polluted' by immigrants (run France, here comes the polish plumbers to eat your culture!).
I'll believe that China is a super power on par with the US or the EU when hundreds of Americans due each year smuggle themselves in shipping crates in a desperate attempt to get the land of opportunity known as China.
The problem with dropping rocks is that in order to really move a large rock (or even a small one), you need to do it WAY in advance. China would be better off sending a backpacker around the artic circle to America with a nuke in his pants and announcing that he is coming. If China sent something up that altered a rock so that it was aimed at the US, it would be clear very quickly. The US, or any other nation with a doomsday rock headed towards them, would likely be a tad touchy about the whole thing. Sure, months or years later the rock might hit and do terrible damage, but by then it wouldn't really matter because the nuclear war would be done and over with.
Doomsday devices are just stupid to toy with when everyone else has them. An asteroid or 2,000 nukes... does it really matter which one you get hit by? All of the super powers have more then enough firepower to wipe the other off the map. If we restrained ourselves during the cold war, I would find it hard to believe we couldn't find the same restraint when the 'tension' between the US and China is a few orders of magnitude lower.
Finally, most people don't realize this, but China really has a lot to loose in any such event. Sure, they have pile of people, but they also have some very real internal political strife. People think of China as one homogenous happy culture that all gets along. The truth is that China has a lot dissent within it. The government is iron fisted enough to deal with the dissent right now, but after a nuclear war? Hell no. China would completely shatter. The US on the other hand has an extremely strong political culture that facilitates smooth transfers of power. I am not saying that the US wouldn't be hurting terribly (nuke wars hurt), but politically, it would reunited as a democracy as at the speed that it could set communications back up.
Doomsday device wars are no win scenarios, and that goes double for nations that rely on an iron fist to rule.
Slashdot Mirror
It is all well and good in hind sight to say that is what should have been done. In hind sight it can even be argued that the nukes never had to be used. What it ignores was the reality of the time. The world had been at war for six years. The US had been at war for almost four years. Casualties in the fighting with Japan actually accelerated UP as the end came closer. The US took its worse losses of the war at the END. Every other atrocity had already been committed by every single side. Nukes aren't even worth getting worked up over when you put them next to the genocidal fire bombings the Americans committed or the wholesale rape and genocide that the Japanese committed on the ground to civilians. Further, both sides were considering using chemical weapons for the coming battle on the Japanese mainland. Europe was a mess and needed to be rebuilt. Convincing the few allied military powers still standing to travel half way around the world and fight some more would have been insane.
The world was at a point where every atrocity had already been committed. Not many people blinked at committing one more if it meant ending the war. Further, that one atrocity was a lesser atrocity then ones that had already been committed. The world was tired and had no desire to sustain war any longer. No one was going to listen to arguments that such a weapon shouldn't be used if it meant that everyone's sons could home, no one else would have to die after, and the rebuilding could begin.
So, you can smugly look back and claim your moral superiority in this pristine age where the worst you have to worry about is getting whacked by a car crossing the street. Or you can try and sympathize with a nation and a world that was weary of war, tired of sacrificing their sons to fight wars over seas, and ready to begin picking up the shattered pieces of the world.
I agree with parent. We are clearly going in the wrong direction. What will happen next to ruin our great nation? Will we let negros and women vote? Will we allow inter-racial marriage? Will we allow Orientals to immigrate here and dilute the blood of this great nation? Next thing you know it, it will not be socially acceptable to be a god loving member of the KKK. Well, at least we can rest assure that in no state, not even Massachusetts, will they ever allow sodomizers to get married. This nation is headed down the wrong path. We need to act NOW before the negros, Orientals, and feminist ruin this great nation.
I suggest getting a grip on reality and expanding your outlook of history beyond 8 years. You can spout off whatever you damn well please and no Gestapo is going to beat down your door.
Get a friggin grip. You have to modify the game in order to play your little sex game. Further, there are no nude skins in the game, you need to add those in yourself. To put it bluntly, anyone who can figure out how to hack GTA enough to get the hot coffee mini game working has more then enough knowledge to download all manner of pr0n that makes hot coffee look like British tea.
Further, have you people played this game? After using every single vulgar curse in the dictionary and a few that are not, you can then go on a murder spree. For fucks sake, get some perspective. A sex mini game with your character's clothes on is pocket change compared to the rest of the game. I know we are all Americans and complete fucking prudes when it comes to sex... but really, get some perspective.
Let me show you why I don't care.
BUSH IS A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!!! THAT LITTLE LIMP DICKED FUCK IS RUINING THE NATION. FUCK BUSH. FUCK REPUBLICANS. FUCK THE IRAQ WAR. FUCK THEIR MOTHERS.
Has the SWAT broken into my house yet? Is my Internet connection cut?
I was in DC during the height of the anti-war protests. I remember walking down the street and finding a dude holding a sign which basically was the above, with a few pictures of mutilated civilian corpses on it thrown in for good measure. Another person was handing out anti-war flyers. There were crowds of protestors milling around, chanting, and having a merry old time. The police didn't give a shit. Hell, there were barely any police at all. The few police that were there were either keeping protestors from getting into the traffic or guarding handful of right wing nut jobs dressed up in American flags and holding "Jesus hates liberals and fags, but loves ours troops!" signs.
I have seen KKK rallies (and the accompanying anti-KKK rallies that always follow them), gay pride parades, anti war marches, pro-life protests, and pro-choice protests. At least once a week communist working the street near where I live try and give me one of their newspapers, and if I am feeling bored, we have a merry discussion over coffee as to why the Revolution is well on its way.
Is the system perfect? Hell no. Is it better then most places in the world? Absolutely. Americans don't even understand what corruption is. Most Americans have never bribed a police officer in their life, or even considered it a viable way to deal with a problem with the law. If someone has an opinion, they never think twice about blasting it across the Internet with their name attached to it in blinking colors. Hell, just open up a Slashdot message article in the politics section and watch as Americans merrily babble on about how worthless their government's policies are.
I am sorry, but Western Europeans and Americans who have never left the first world don't understand concepts like poverty, freedom of speech, and representative government. Sure, they understand the dictionary meaning of those words, but their scale is so skewed they can barely recognize how their own nations relate to them. They take for granted what they have and fail to recognize what others don't. If you ever go to a truly poor nation you will realize that poor people are skinny in ways you have never seen, and realize that the 'poor' people in your nation are fat and more likely to die if a heart attack then from starvation. If you go to an oppressive nations you will see people hesitate to even discuss certain topics even when they are not in public when you wouldn't think twice about having a loud debate on the sidewalk.
Get a grip on reality. People in the US and Europe have it good. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is there corruption... well, it is run by humans, isn't it? Does the corruption, oppression, and poverty that takes place in Europe and the US even fit on the same scale as many other nations? Hell - fucking - no.
Nope, he is just a European.
The US isn't a tiny little piece of the Internet that you can easily cut away and replace. If the US disappeared off the Internet... well, you would notice. The economic damage to the world would be unimaginable. Even if all the economic damage was in the US (which it wouldn't be), that is a solid 1/4th of the worlds economy suddenly unable to speak. There is plenty of room for negotiation; it just isn't going to be with 'the world'. "The world" includes some people that you really DON'T want to have any say over world wide communications.
Further, in race to declare that the US can't control the Internet, you ignored or were ignorant to the fact the US DOESN'T own all of the root servers. There are ones in Stockholm, London, and Tokyo. While all of those places might have a McDonalds, last time I checked, that doesn't make them apart of the US. Further still, of the root servers that are "in the US", many actually exist in multiple locations outside of the US and use Anycast to decentralize the service.
My advice? Take a deep breath and go spend some time in the Wikipedia looking up root servers. The US might be a sizable hunk of the Internet, and it might very well thumb its nose at the idea of letting Syria, Sudan, or China have any say over the Internet in the guise of the UN, but it certainly is cooperating with rest of the world. Cooperation doesn't mean that everyone gets a say. Even if it did mean that, the UN only lets governments have a say. Governments and people are two very different things, especially in some parts of the world. Cooperation means that the US will deal with some trusted nations and exclude others.
Stolen From Someone With the Patience to Read:
"The 12 governmental officials on the 40-person WGIG come from Barbados, Belgium, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Luxembourg, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. The rest are drawn from the private sector, academia and civil society."
Okay, of the 12 nations that had a say in this little report, 4 of them I would give any sort of trust to. China, Cuba, Sudia Arabia, Egypt... really now. Are these the nations you want to have a say over the most important communications tool in the world? Hell, the very fact that these nations are for the proposal is more then enough reason for me to be against it.
"How comes that the same people speaking about democracy and freedom have so much problems to give other nations the right to vote where they are concerned?"
Democracy and freedom have absolutely nothing to do with letting other governments vote on world policy. Only people can have democracy and freedom. China voting in the UN isn't any more 'democratic' then if McDonalds could vote in the UN. Neither organization is democratic, and neither should have a say as to how the people in this world who DO live in democracies should run their lives.
"How comes that the UN has a rather good reputation in Europe and such a bad one in the US?"
During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union tumbled around like two giants with the rest of the world caught in the middle. The US spent its time actively trying to protect and expand its system by any means necessary, and that protection extended to Western Europe. Western Europe at the time was more then happy to have its own super power on its side to keep the Soviet Union away. The Cold War is over. Without the Cold War hanging over peoples' heads, the need to proactively promote democracy is of much less concern to the people of Europe. The US on the other hand is running around with the same zeal that it has for the last 50 years, seemingly indifferent to the fact that the Soviet Union is crushed. If anything, it is almost like the US realized that it just killed their number one foe and have redoubled their attempts to make sure the victory is total.
The trust or distrust in the UN is just a symptom of this, in my opinion. The US is still a super power and it wants to continue aggressively converting the world to democracy. Europe might even agree in principle that a democratic world is a better world. The difference is that Europe is more then happy to let things play out. The slow, bulky, undemocratic, but very stable mechanism of the UN represent the European vision. Anything the UN does isn't going to rock the boat. Anything that all of the permanent members, of security council can agree on something, including the US, China, France, and Russia, it isn't going to be earth shatter or controversial. Under this system where things only happen when everyone can agree, including nations that are not democracies, you get stability and very very slow change. The US on the other hand is dead opposed to this system. It wants the rest of the world to look more like the US, Europe, and Japan yesterday. In any system where China and Russia have veto power, that isn't going to happen any time soon.
I'm not saying one is better then the other. They both have their advantages. The European way IS slow. People will suffer for generations before things are made right if you choose to be so conservative. On the other hand, the US way is reckless, destructive, and has the potential to make things even worse, especially in the short term.
Which view is better? Eh, ask me again in 50 years. Either the US will blast a way to a golden era for the nations that it has touched, like Germany and Japan after World War II, or it will sow the seeds for future conflict with its shortsightedness, like after World War I. Time will tell.
Well, I don't recall that last time the US ran over its own citizens with tanks, then made those who were not outright killed "disappear". I also have never heard of the "Great Fire Wall of the US". Based upon that information, I would venture a guess that he was talking about China.
"Every country is represented at the UN, so you can still call you representative or your governement."
That is all well and good, but that doesn't make it a good government. Right now I can calling my senator and my senator, he can agree to my position, and still be out voted by the senators from Alabama and Mississippi. Granted, I might not like Alabama or Mississippi. I might even think as far as politics go they are roughly as backwards as they come. That said, there is something common in politics that binds us. We all agree to abide by the constitution, and we all agree to resolve our disputes in a democratic political process. I still might not like the outcome, but even if I violently disagree with how the representatives voted, I can at least agree in principle that they were appointed the right way. Is the system perfect? Hell no. Is it pretty coherent for a system that governs roughly a quarter of a billion people over the land area of a third of a continent? Hell yeah.
Now, the UN is an entirely different beast. I do NOT agree in any way shape or form with how the UN representative from China or Syria was selected. I do not agree even vaguely in principle. Even the most basic and fundamental givens from my political system like 'freedom of speech' do not apply to these nations. Now, you want ME to agree to letting these people legislate for me?
There is not a chance in hell I would be for letting the UN have any say or tax over the Internet. If the UN wants to act as a place to setup up treaties to deal for law enforcement, great. If you are suggesting that a nation like China or Syria should have even a little say in the running of the Internet as a whole, you are out of your mind. They are more then welcome to firewall the hell out of their own nations, throw dissidents in jail, filter out website with any mention of the words "democracy" or "Taiwan", or whatever makes them feel safe from their own people. They can run over their own people with tanks for all I care, so long as it stays inside their borders. They can not and will not have any say over what happens inside of the United States, ESPECIALLY when it comes to a medium that is built around speech and communication.
If they don't like it, they can build their own Internet and convince people to use their servers.
I can't recall where I saw this quote. Might have been on a Slashdot actually. Whatever the case, it goes:
"Remember, Republicans are the evil party and Democrats are the stupid party. If they ever both agree on something it is both stupid and evil."
Just the other day I was hanging out with two Republican women. They know that bitching about "liberals" is pretty safe around me because I am libertarian leaning in politics. They were bitching about how "liberals want to force their values on you". I laughed and said, "Right, because republicans are against 'forcing values'... so long as we are not talking about social freedoms." The two shut up.
If you ever want to be on the fun side of a debate, just be a Libertarian. You can join one side in blasting the other, then promptly turn around and blast the people you just agreed with, without any hypocrisy.
Great... The dems and the reps can legislate morality together. Oh merry day. That said, I actually agree in princple. A nice ultra-leftist president with a slim republican majority in both houses. With any luck they wouldn't be able to get anything done. Really though, I think the best solution is simply to change the voting system. Don't do anything fancy, just add one more canidate to all the lists. Let "no" be a canidate. I would vote for "no".
Err, you might want to take a better Constitution party. They are very much against socialism... but they have the small problem being very xenophobic and wanting to combine the Church and the State. If you crank a Democrat all the way over to his logical extremes and you have communist with no interest in cultural issues, then if you crank a Republican all the way over you have the Constitution party.
Honestly, if you don't like who is running, vote for the guy that you feel closest to who isn't a Democrat or Republican. Unless the Democrats pull a candidate who is all for social freedom and can at least suppress their impulse to spend, or the Republicans pull a more libertarian minded person from their ranks who can both resist the impulse to spend AND avoid trying to bring me to Jesus... well, I'll be voting Libertarian.
Personally, watching these elections is killing me. It used be that you could at least count of Republicans to hold the economic line against spending everything they have and then some, and you could count on the Democrats to beat the religious conservatives back into their churches and stop legislating morality. These days though it seems like each party has taken on the worst of the other. Republicans are in control of the government now and are burning through money like it is going out of style. The Democrats on the other hand seem to be utterly incapable of taking a stand against the legislation of morality. Hillary trying to 'save the children' is a perfect example. Setting up censor boards to protect our morality is the kind of bullshit I expect out of religious conservatives.
Would I want a true Libertarian in government? Hell no. Libertarians don't have a plan for winning. If they ever won they wouldn't know what to do. Abolishing the IRS sounds great when you are speaking to a group of people in a rural town hall and everyone has a gun rock in their pickup truck, but the reality is that you really need a little more planning then that.
Further, they need the ability to take on compromise positions and let not-so-important positions slide. In principle I might believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves without interference so long as they only hurt themselves. Does that mean we really need to legalize crack immediately? If the Libertarians really wanted some creditability, they would take some reasonable positions that the mainstream could potentially swallow. They can save preaching the rest of their whack-job positions for later.
That said, I will vote Libertarian. If nothing else, it is a like waking into the voting booth and voting No. Further, you clarify that you are not voting for either Republican or Democrat because you don't care or are lazy, but because you really just don't like Republicans or Democrats - which in my opinion is a far more effective form of protest.
I really don't see the issue. If the rest of the world wants their own Internet... they can go build it. There is nothing stopping the rest of the world from building their own system and simply ignoring the US run Internet. Hell, the lines are already there in most countries.
What it boils down to is that the US will never give up the Internet to the UN. The US doesn't trust the UN. If NATO was more of a civilian organization and less of a military organization, you might actually have some success in getting the US to hand over the keys to them. The US simply will not hand over the Internet to an organization that has members that are the other side of the world when it comes to even basic ideology. The US is utterly imposed to China, Syria, Sudan, or whatever tin pot dictators you can think up having ANY say.
Surely you can argue that the US is responsible for the creation of some of these nations with 'questionable' governing practices. That doesn't change the fact that it wont empower then any farther then the function of their creation. Afghanistan is a perfect example. The Soviets invaded, and because the Soviets were the enemy of the US, the US was more then happy to train and arm people who in the normal course of things would never have been able to receive any favorable dealings from the US. The justification was of course that it is the selection of the lesser of two evils. Better a few crazy religious nuts running around small third world nation then to allow the Soviets to expand their influence and threaten the rest of the world. It is an unenviable position to be in. You can have ideals, but the reality of it is that the world is gray and, as the UN shows more clearly then most organizations, ideals get compromised. No idealistic democracy would let the Soviet Union or China have veto power in any sort of world body.
So, is dealing with the UN and sitting on a council with less then democratic nations dictating world policy a compromise in ideology? Sure, but it is a necessary compromise. The US needs to deal with the rest of the world, even nations that it is ideologically opposed to. That said, I would act surprised when the US only deals with them only so far as necessary. Handing over the key to the US and world economy and communication systems to a world body made up of less then democratic and friendly nations is one compromise the US doesn't need to take.
Personally, I think that what the world needs is a new 'world body' that is exclusive to democratic nations that meet a certain criteria. Have the criteria reviewed every year by an independent body, then tie in a pile of trade incentives to join. I imagine such an organization would be significantly more capable conducting affairs like these and spur democratic growth.
This is almost like reverse 'US politicians are going to eat me syndrome' from the US where whenever a stupid bill is proposed a dozen posts pop up threatening to move to Canada.
Breath.
The bill has not been passed into law. The bill has been vaguely considered. The likely scenario is that some crotchety old bastard who doesn't even own a TV in the northern wastelands of Canada who was elected by his four neighbors, which live 100 miles away (giving him a solid 90% of the vote), was given a wet dream bill by a lobbyist going through the motions to receive his paycheck. Someone politician owns a computer a thousand blood thirsty lobbyist representing any industry hurt by said bill are going to descend upon the capital and decry the bill as the music industries attempt to trying to eat Google, libraries, and small children. The liberals are going to recoil in disgust at the realization that bill might help the music industry, and the conservatives with a hard on for Google or some other corporation will promptly decry the bill as undue government interference. It will then be completely lobotomized and be reworded to either say, "It is illegal to provide copywrite information location tools powered by babies pulled from their mother's wombs" or turned into a poison pill of a bill and be reworded to say, "Canada will construct a tower of dead babies from which the music industry can lord over the small people of Canada as Gods".
Whatever version they pick it will be written in both French and English.
Both sides will make long winded speeches that has nothing to do with the law being discussed. These speeches will get chopped up and put into campaign literature.
The campaign literature will also be in both French and English.
It will be a unanimous voted on either way, either against making a tower of dead babies or for making it illegal to run a device powered by dead babies. Whatever the case, at the end of the day, the political system will defeat this bill in its own kludgy and ham-fisted way.
So breath, no one has to move to the US to escape the iron fist of the Canadian government.
It's not that boggling when you consider 62% of all Insightful's are Overrated and 83% of all Funny's are Redundant.
I agree 100%.
I think his point was that an armed civilian revolution is a near impossibility these days. Places where the government is over thrown by violence almost always are overthrown by the military... hence why the world has so many military dictatorships. The USSR was no exception. The civilian population had very little to do with the revolt, and almost the entire thing was conducted by the military.
Now, that is not to say that you can't still oust a government with popular protest, but the application of that one is limited to places where the government is willing to show a little restraint or the government has a weak control over the military. Try a popular protest in South America and you might have some luck. Try the same thing in North Korea and you are going to have to use bulldozers and dump trucks to remove all of the civilian bodies.
Put another way, can you name the last nation to create a democracy in an armed civilian revolution against the military?
You are right in that the UK people have already paid for it. That is not what people have a problem with. It isn't that people paid for it, it is that people were forced to pay for it. They are complaining that the BBC, unlike a normal corporation, can collect payment for goods and services by force (taxes). Further, the BBC can collect payment for goods and services regardless if people even take the goods and services. It would be like if McDonalds charged nothing to eat there, but sent a bill to everyone in the nation for the cost of all the food consumed and could throw you in jail or confiscate your property if you refused to pay. Good for people who like McDonalds? Sure. You could go to McDonalds every single day (not that I would suggest it) and eat yourself stupid. Good for people who don't eat at McDonalds or competing restaurant chains that have to convince their customers to pay the old fashion way? Hell no.
Every time you have an industry collect money through tax collection competing against a privately funded industry that has to collect money through voluntary sales transactions, the privately funded businesses get hurt. The real question is how much your society is willing to tolerate that state of affairs. It is a good thing to have government monopolies like this in the sense that you ensure everyone gets access to that good or service and can distribute the cost of it. It is bad in that you kill off the vast majority of competition that might have produced a better or cheaper product, simply because they can't compete with free.
If you want a shining example of this, compare American TV to British TV. American TV only has the barely funded (especially compared to the BBS) PBS to compete with. As a result, Americans have a lot of home grown TV stations, significantly higher production quality, and a wider verity of choices in terms of viewing. Now, the quality is certainly debatable and subject to taste, but in terms of things like production value and choice, the difference is stark.
I don't see any resident of Switzerland, Japan, or Hong Kong shipping themselves on crates to U.S., does that mean the U.S. is not a superpower? Residents of rich countries don't ship themselves in crates to other rich countries.
I don't see any resident of Switzerland, Japan, or Hong Kong shipping themselves on crates to U.S., does that mean the U.S. is not a superpower? Residents of rich countries don't ship themselves in crates to other rich countries.
You are right, you don't see them shipping themselves by cargo crate anywhere... which is exactly my point. This is an impoverished nation, despite what the local elite my tell you. It is impoverished to such a level that your average American will never be able to comprehend how bad it is for some people there. This is the reason why you don't find Americans, Japanese, and Swedes taking suicidal risks to escape the nations they are in. Even for the lowest of the low in these nations, it isn't bad enough to justify risking life and limb getting to another nation. Your average American and European can't even begin to understand true poverty, which is why when people say stuff like "China is poor", they shrug and go "Yeah, but so are parts of New York."
China is no threat to the world in terms of economic might. China is a mess. The government is wildly ineffective and completely incapable of reacting in the world market. China has one thing going for it - a billion people without TVs or jobs. Basically, what they have going for themselves is a lot of impoverished people... not exactly an ideal place to be.
Finally, you need to understand that as China rises and becomes richer, it will be harder and harder for China to grow. China might be enticing when you can get workers for a little more then the cost of feeding them. However, what happens when they start demanding even a fraction of the wages anywhere comparable to an American or European? What is the competitive advantage locating in China can offer? Corrupt government? Poor utilities? Labor with low productivity? Tight business regulations? Government monopolies? China is cheap and that is it. Once China stops being so cheap, all of that production is going to take a hike to Africa or some other impoverished area of the world.
If there is any silver lining, for China, once they stop being so cheap and companies begin to move out, China might very well have to change. They might be pushed into to dealing with corruption, regulations, government monopolies, their inept governing system, and all the things that make China a less then utopic place to do business. They probably will not become a democracy over night, but I imagine the economic wall they are going to run into might provoke the middle class force some changes.
"If everyone else is playing by the book?"
Did you even read what I said? The point is that people are NOT playing by the book.
As far as 'rogue' nations that don't play by the book, by rogue, do you mean every single nation that isn't Sweden or the Netherlands? By your rules most of Africa, China, Russia, every single Middle Eastern Nation clearly are 'not playing by the rules'. France, Germany, England, a smattering of other European nations and the US all also fail to 'play by the rules'.
So... I guess you are arguing that Sweden and the Netherlands declare the rest of the world rogue nations and refuse to deal with them?
Isn't the point of getting to the top to be able to sit in your basement doing crap like this if it tickles your pleasure? If Americans have a problem, it is fucked up priorities. I have known far too many people that devote their lives entirely to work. Working 80 hours a week is justifiable if that is how much you have to work to survive. It is insanity if you have already trounced the middle class line in the US and could own a modest compound in any other developing nation on the same budget. America has the world most productive workers, and they just keep getting more productive. The rest of the world, even long since developed nations like those in Europe, lag behind.
I am not saying I don't appreciate the guy whose life is work, as he is responsible for lower costs, more technology, and all the things I like to receive. My point is that I sure as hell wouldn't want to be him. 40 hours a week plus a few extra when things get tight is fine. Making your life work and forgetting that you only work to live, well, that isn't for me. I am not saying I don't enjoy my job to an extent. Of all the things I could be doing that someone is willing to shell enough money to live off of, I love what I do the best. That said, if someone dropped 10 million in my lap, I would quit the next day without a second thought.
If the Chinese, Japanese, or whoever beat past the US by working 80 hours a week after enduring decades of school... fuck, they can have it. I can live with buying the shit they make if it means I don't have to sleep in my laboratory.
I hate to be the wet blanket, but I really don't see this as being terribly useful. Does it sound like fun? Sure. If making renewable energy more of a reality is the goal though, this seems like a waste of funds. Solar cars will never be a reality. It doesn't matter what you do, there is a finite limit on how much energy hits the surface of the earth per area, and it isn't a lot.
That is not to say that we couldn't make solar powered cars that would fit most people's driving needs. This contest certainly shows that you can get a human from point at A to B just the power of the sun, but the sacrifices you make to get there is the real problem. Even if you could be content with the dramatic power reduction, the elimination of most luxuries, and the dramatically reduced hauling load, the safety 'compromises' are simply unforgivable. These cars would be moving coffins even on European streets where the cars are smaller and lighter. They are death traps waiting to happen on American streets.
If a university wanted to set up a competition really worthwhile, the competition would be to produce the solar cells with the highest power/cost ratio over a long period of time given a certain size constraint. Or even better, have them develop a solar cell with the highest power/cost ratio possible that can act as roofing tiles and survive some stress testing. Solar cells are still too costly to get them to really eat a sizable chunk of our power needs. If someone really wanted to do something great, they would work towards make ultra cheap, durable, solar cells. With those, not only can you eat some of our power costs, but things like hydrogen fuel cells truly become 'green', instead of just changing where the polution is coming from.
I agree with parent. Is there really a need to compare Bulgaria to Missouri? I have been to Bulgaria and it really is not that bad such that you need to compare it to Missouri.
I agree. If you do all of those things, terrorism will likely never be a problem in your nation. If everyone played by those rules, you probably would eliminate almost all conflicts.
So what happens when someone breaks those rules?
If Nazis are incinerating Jews and everyone else who doesn't meet their racial specifications, do you do anything to intercede? What if they go ahead and invade every nation on their border? Can you intervene then? Was Britain and the US wrong to get involved in World War II according to your 'recipe'? What about Korea? Would the world be a better place if the US hadn't gotten the UN to defend South Korea and the entire pensile was under the lovable leadership of the North? Was the US and Western Europe wrong to oppose the Soviet Union? Would the world be a better place if half of it was in the hands of the Soviets?
Your recipe is cute, but it blatantly ignores the realities of this world. The reality is that you can follow this recipe. Many nations in fact do, and as you say, they generally have no problems. The issue comes with the nations that ignore your recipe. Should other nations then go ahead and stand up and beat them back down like they did in World War II? If so, how many rules does a nation need to break before you intervene? Germany and Iraq both broke all of those rules with the possible exception of the economic one. Did they both deserve to be invaded? Did just one deserve to be invaded?
You might as well have just stated that cure for violence is for no one to be violent. That might be true, but it is an utterly worthless tip for those of us living in reality.
"That is from the CIA world fact book, admitedly the poverty line definition is probably different."
I love that CIA fact book. However, you are right to point out the 'poverty' is very different in the two nations. Impoverished Americans do not die of starvation. They die of heart disease because they are fat. An impoverished American is well fed but slightly malnourished. 'Well fed but possibly malnourished' sure as hell is not the definition of impoverished in China. The definition of poverty is defined by the government, and a government as obsessed with image as the Chinese government is going to set definition of poverty such that few make it in, so you can display figures like that the US has the same poverty rate as China. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if China pegs its definition of poverty such that the percent always matches the US.
Next, you need to realize that China has so much growth because its population is so damn poor. When you have 1.3 billion people and most of them don't have TVs, much less DvDs yet... well, you are talking about a potentially huge market. However, once that market has been fulfilled, what is next? This is the part of the 'China is the next super power argument' that always baffles me. What on earth does China have that could possibly let their people become as wealth as the US and Europe? China has poor utilities, an amazing corrupt and bureaucratic government, and a xenophobic culture. China has nothing over the US and Europe other then that they are cheaper and have fewer environmental regulations. China can only remain cheaper as long as they are poor. If they are no longer poor, they have nothing to offer. US and to a lesser extent Europe will continue drain China and the rest of the world of their elite simply by offering up open societies that easily adapt to immigrants. China on the other hand is only going to receive immigrants from even more destitute neighbors (AKA North Korea) and will have a very hard time convincing a Europeans or Americans that China is the place to go for grad school - much less convince them to live there for the rest of their lives.
So, will the US be eclipsed one day? Sure. Will it be by a closed, inhumanly bureaucratic, xenophobic society? Hell no. India has a better shot then China because they at least have a system capable of changing itself. The EU could have a shot if it could get its shit together and stop cowering in terror at the thought of the culture of the individual nations being 'polluted' by immigrants (run France, here comes the polish plumbers to eat your culture!).
I'll believe that China is a super power on par with the US or the EU when hundreds of Americans due each year smuggle themselves in shipping crates in a desperate attempt to get the land of opportunity known as China.
The problem with dropping rocks is that in order to really move a large rock (or even a small one), you need to do it WAY in advance. China would be better off sending a backpacker around the artic circle to America with a nuke in his pants and announcing that he is coming. If China sent something up that altered a rock so that it was aimed at the US, it would be clear very quickly. The US, or any other nation with a doomsday rock headed towards them, would likely be a tad touchy about the whole thing. Sure, months or years later the rock might hit and do terrible damage, but by then it wouldn't really matter because the nuclear war would be done and over with.
Doomsday devices are just stupid to toy with when everyone else has them. An asteroid or 2,000 nukes... does it really matter which one you get hit by? All of the super powers have more then enough firepower to wipe the other off the map. If we restrained ourselves during the cold war, I would find it hard to believe we couldn't find the same restraint when the 'tension' between the US and China is a few orders of magnitude lower.
Finally, most people don't realize this, but China really has a lot to loose in any such event. Sure, they have pile of people, but they also have some very real internal political strife. People think of China as one homogenous happy culture that all gets along. The truth is that China has a lot dissent within it. The government is iron fisted enough to deal with the dissent right now, but after a nuclear war? Hell no. China would completely shatter. The US on the other hand has an extremely strong political culture that facilitates smooth transfers of power. I am not saying that the US wouldn't be hurting terribly (nuke wars hurt), but politically, it would reunited as a democracy as at the speed that it could set communications back up.
Doomsday device wars are no win scenarios, and that goes double for nations that rely on an iron fist to rule.