The Marshall aid was important. It was a rather small amount, I believe far smaller than the annual inter-state aid Germany provides to its easter regions, but it was important nonetheless considering the poor shape a lot of Europe was in. Foreign aid is important both from a humanitarian perspective, and for building up new markets. The EU and US have roughly the same size of economies, so the Marshall plan has definitely benefited the US a lot because of the huge market its companies can sell products too. Of course, this is also part of the EU's motivation in its aid programmes to the third world and to the eastern membership applicants.
Regarding the argument of providing world security, I think it can have some merit although overall, I'm not so sure. It seems that usually (maybe not always) US military interventions are based on perceived long-term self interest, and over the past 50 years I think the US has often threatened security rather than provide it (forgive the generalization, but I think it largely holds true). And one shouldn't forget that many other countries provide a lot of "security" too (via UN troops and such -- the vast majority of which in regions like the Balkans are not from the US).
Per capita or GDP percentage is the accepted way of measuring, and it is done in all comparisons between countries. Why? Because the measure we are interested in, I would assume, is the level of generosity, not some vague combined value of an entire citizenry's contribution (which is obviously dependant on population size, which is not a factor in generosity).
But regardless, the US doesn't provide most of the aid to the third world as the poster claimed, if you count the EU as a block (which makes sense since aid spending is largely "federalized" in the EU). In fact, I think Japan alone (although don't quote me on that, I'd need to double-check first) provides more aid in total amounts than the US despite having a far smaller population and GDP.
"Guess who gives more to the third world than all the euro assmunches combined? America."
The EU provides 55 % of the total development aid in the world. The US is last among all the OECD nations (20 or so) in foreign aid spending in % of GDP. (Which isn't saying much, 'cause most western countries also ought to be ashamed -- just not as much.)
I pay 100 SEK (around 11) extra per month for GPRS connectivity with Telia. That includes 5 MB of data (I think), any more is charged extra. It works well and I think it's an okay deal.
Most modern phones feature T9 input technology, allowing you to type MUCH faster than in the old days. It compares what you write with a built-in dictionary in real time and guesses the right word as you type (and about nine times out of ten, it immediately works -- otherwise you can select from other matching words). Go to the site and try it out, they have a live demo.
A packet switched network (GPRS) is available in most if not all (European) countries already and with a POP3 capable cell phone (just about any decent phone) this functionality is here, today.
In my view, the EU works quite differently from the other organizations you mentioned since it's not a one-issue organization. While it used to be a trade organization alone, it's now become the equivalence of a government involved in everything from the environment to social policies, education, technology, and even foreign policy and defense. It also has better and more direct representation by the people (via the elected parliament, etc). Thus, I think the EU is less of an enemy than organizations such as the WTO and WIPO who are concerned only about one thing (trade, or copyright). Basically the WTO and WIPO are special interest groups, whereas the EU is just a framework for decision making -- where actualy decisions will depend on where the political winds blow at present. Of course, this doesn't mean that those organizations can't subject politicians within the EU to pressure and thus make it sometimes act on their behalf (as we saw with the patent issue), as they can with US representatives.
"It's called the system of checks and balances. The government is divided up into three branches... this is elementary school stuff. There are no other democracies like it..."
All current representative democracies work more or less in the same way. You have yet to specify the uniqueness of the system you describe that would make it less likely to develop flawed policy.
While I concede a problem with lobbying in Brussels, some of your information is simply not accurate. For example the claim that condom sizes are standardized in the EU. It is the quality that is standardized upon, not the size. Some British newspapers changed that into condom sizes being standardized but it's a typical media hoax.
This is an absolute scandal!!!
Never in my wildest dreams did I think the European Commision would have the nerve to present an industry document as their own proposal.
How does it "check itself" compared to "other places"? It doesn't significantly differ from other western so called democracies, and as you pointed out yourself the government is run by people in the end. The amount of "checking" that can be done is pretty limited.
I read an article a few years ago. It implied that warrants to initiate phone surveillance is given to the Swedish secret service (SÄPO) almost routinely when they ask for it. The reason stated was that courts simply think it's so exciting to assist in national security issues and don't think much about whether it's justified or not.
I did actually, by using a WAP-mail service of my cellular subscription provider. Worked neatly. As of yet I haven't been able to get the phone's own POP3 client to work.:/
I get 5 MB of data in my subscription regardless of how long I stay connected (I normally am always online). For each MB I download to my phone that exceeds what's included, I pay a certain extra fee. AFAIK, this is how all GPRS services work so I think your fears are unfounded.
What is so amazing about this? My cell phone is already connected 24H to the internet via GPRS, all I would need to do is hook up a computer and it too would be online.
Depends on how many countries you count. For example, the EU and US have approximately the same total GDP. (Then again, the EU also has 115 million more people, so that makes it somewhat embarrasing for Europe as the less developed nations in the EU drag down the average.)
The constitutions of most western countries restrict the government and provide free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association etc. In many cases dating back hundreds of years. I don't think the US is special in this regard, however it could be that the UK is since it lacks a written constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
The Marshall aid was important. It was a rather small amount, I believe far smaller than the annual inter-state aid Germany provides to its easter regions, but it was important nonetheless considering the poor shape a lot of Europe was in. Foreign aid is important both from a humanitarian perspective, and for building up new markets. The EU and US have roughly the same size of economies, so the Marshall plan has definitely benefited the US a lot because of the huge market its companies can sell products too. Of course, this is also part of the EU's motivation in its aid programmes to the third world and to the eastern membership applicants.
Regarding the argument of providing world security, I think it can have some merit although overall, I'm not so sure. It seems that usually (maybe not always) US military interventions are based on perceived long-term self interest, and over the past 50 years I think the US has often threatened security rather than provide it (forgive the generalization, but I think it largely holds true). And one shouldn't forget that many other countries provide a lot of "security" too (via UN troops and such -- the vast majority of which in regions like the Balkans are not from the US).
Per capita or GDP percentage is the accepted way of measuring, and it is done in all comparisons between countries. Why? Because the measure we are interested in, I would assume, is the level of generosity, not some vague combined value of an entire citizenry's contribution (which is obviously dependant on population size, which is not a factor in generosity).
But regardless, the US doesn't provide most of the aid to the third world as the poster claimed, if you count the EU as a block (which makes sense since aid spending is largely "federalized" in the EU). In fact, I think Japan alone (although don't quote me on that, I'd need to double-check first) provides more aid in total amounts than the US despite having a far smaller population and GDP.
"Guess who gives more to the third world than all the euro assmunches combined? America."
The EU provides 55 % of the total development aid in the world. The US is last among all the OECD nations (20 or so) in foreign aid spending in % of GDP. (Which isn't saying much, 'cause most western countries also ought to be ashamed -- just not as much.)
I pay 100 SEK (around 11) extra per month for GPRS connectivity with Telia. That includes 5 MB of data (I think), any more is charged extra. It works well and I think it's an okay deal.
Most modern phones feature T9 input technology, allowing you to type MUCH faster than in the old days. It compares what you write with a built-in dictionary in real time and guesses the right word as you type (and about nine times out of ten, it immediately works -- otherwise you can select from other matching words). Go to the site and try it out, they have a live demo.
A packet switched network (GPRS) is available in most if not all (European) countries already and with a POP3 capable cell phone (just about any decent phone) this functionality is here, today.
Same in Scandinavia (always subtitled as opposed to dubbed). I absolutely can not stand dubbing.
In my view, the EU works quite differently from the other organizations you mentioned since it's not a one-issue organization. While it used to be a trade organization alone, it's now become the equivalence of a government involved in everything from the environment to social policies, education, technology, and even foreign policy and defense. It also has better and more direct representation by the people (via the elected parliament, etc). Thus, I think the EU is less of an enemy than organizations such as the WTO and WIPO who are concerned only about one thing (trade, or copyright). Basically the WTO and WIPO are special interest groups, whereas the EU is just a framework for decision making -- where actualy decisions will depend on where the political winds blow at present. Of course, this doesn't mean that those organizations can't subject politicians within the EU to pressure and thus make it sometimes act on their behalf (as we saw with the patent issue), as they can with US representatives.
"It's called the system of checks and balances. The government is divided up into three branches... this is elementary school stuff. There are no other democracies like it..." All current representative democracies work more or less in the same way. You have yet to specify the uniqueness of the system you describe that would make it less likely to develop flawed policy.
While I concede a problem with lobbying in Brussels, some of your information is simply not accurate. For example the claim that condom sizes are standardized in the EU. It is the quality that is standardized upon, not the size. Some British newspapers changed that into condom sizes being standardized but it's a typical media hoax.
This is an absolute scandal!!! Never in my wildest dreams did I think the European Commision would have the nerve to present an industry document as their own proposal.
How does it "check itself" compared to "other places"? It doesn't significantly differ from other western so called democracies, and as you pointed out yourself the government is run by people in the end. The amount of "checking" that can be done is pretty limited.
I read an article a few years ago. It implied that warrants to initiate phone surveillance is given to the Swedish secret service (SÄPO) almost routinely when they ask for it. The reason stated was that courts simply think it's so exciting to assist in national security issues and don't think much about whether it's justified or not.
I did actually, by using a WAP-mail service of my cellular subscription provider. Worked neatly. As of yet I haven't been able to get the phone's own POP3 client to work. :/
I get 5 MB of data in my subscription regardless of how long I stay connected (I normally am always online). For each MB I download to my phone that exceeds what's included, I pay a certain extra fee. AFAIK, this is how all GPRS services work so I think your fears are unfounded.
What is so amazing about this? My cell phone is already connected 24H to the internet via GPRS, all I would need to do is hook up a computer and it too would be online.
Digital cellular phone networks are old hat. They are starting to appear even in the US. What's hot today is GPRS and 3G connectivity.
Depends on how many countries you count. For example, the EU and US have approximately the same total GDP. (Then again, the EU also has 115 million more people, so that makes it somewhat embarrasing for Europe as the less developed nations in the EU drag down the average.)
The constitutions of most western countries restrict the government and provide free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association etc. In many cases dating back hundreds of years. I don't think the US is special in this regard, however it could be that the UK is since it lacks a written constitution.
Also, downloading spam means my modem will stay connected for a longer period of time while my money ticks away.
I hate to be pedantic, but most major store chains in the UK and Sweden have declared that they will be accepting euros. :)