True... but I'm talking MASSIVE devaluation... I'm also talking about relative to poorer countries. It isn't going to happen NOW. All I'm saying is that it will be difficult for rich countries to stay competitive with poorer ones as the world becomes more capitalistic (i.e. free markets, easier flow of capital, less taxes, privatization of nearly every aspect of society, etc). It remains to be seen if I'm right--don't bet your life savings on this:)
I, for one, am perfectly satisfied if you continue to hold to your current beliefs... In 20 years, we will still be selling you the ideas that make the world work.
You don't know who I am, what I am, or where I am:)... so who exactly is "we"? Are you talking about a country? Region? Capitalists?
I'm very sad that you have so little faith in the creative prowess of the average worker...
I have a lot of faith in the worker... where I lack faith is the system.
why else would there be things like automatic garage openers, remote controls, etc if the average person didn't recognize a need for a time saving device. The "benevolent" government did not create these things...
The government (as represented by people) DID create many things. The VAST MAJORITY of scientific research that led to the creation of many technologies were funded by government (using taxpayer money). In case you forgot, universities are still funded by government (although corporations at taking over).
In any case, people have been discovering things for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Long before capitalism showed up. Even people under fascist (eg. Germany) and Communist (eg. USSR) were discovering things.
Without competition, there is no drive to improve on the existing system, and you will stagnate and your empire will decline.
Empires hardly have any competition. Historically this is how it has been. The top countries/regions/kingdoms had very little competition. In fact one can argue that countries/kingdoms/whatever become empires by totally destroying its competition (and ending up as a monoploy of sorts).
Furthermore, if competition is what is desired, why do countries like USA invade other countries? When USA can't "compete" in the oil market, just invade other countries! When Russia wanted some resources, just invade Poland under the guise of "democracy" and "liberation". If USA, for example, wanted competition it would not meddle in the Middle East. If it wanted competition, it would not keep the embargo against Cuba (which was instituted due to heavy lobbying by some US fruit company).
Overall, I support cooperation over competition. Competition can be good in the realm of the small, say between different companies, or different individuals. But when it happens on the large scale (eg. on the planetary level, or between countries), one country always invades the other or destroys it and turns it into a monopoly. Do you really think USA, as a country, wants competition in any of its industries? Absolutely not. This goes for any country.
there is a strong sense of "we want to be the best", such that when another nation gains a perceived technological lead, the USA will garner to improve itself, thus jobs and wealth are created, and the system improves.
See... my point is that every country can and does do that.
I, for one, am perfectly satisfied if you continue to hold to your current beliefs...
The system that you cherish (capitalism) is going to collapse. Yes, I'm just a fool preaching the impending doom. But as they say, fools are wise;)
I don't think that spirituality and science have any overlap at all.
What exactly is spirituality? Given that practically all religions comment on reality and metaphysics (eg. physics, biology, etc), what would be the "spiritual way"? Even Eastern religions that are "vague" and don't deal much with metaphysics (eg. buddism) conflict with science.
I think (and of course this is my own interpretation) that since I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, it would be foolish to make a stong assertion either way.
Every rational thought we have is tilted towards the sceptical side. Not believing in God would be consistent with that (unless there is some proof that tilts the view). If I say that an alien is beside you in your room watching you read this, would you believe that the alien exists? The answer is NO. We tend to follow that thinking because we don't believe something that doesn't exist. Therfore, I would argue that not believing in God is more logical than believing in God. If you do believe in both positions equally, then you should also believe that there is a possibility that an alien is in your room.
We have no proof of either side. BUT I lean strongly in the direction that is "positive". If you start claiming something exists, the onus is on you. I would rather believe that something does not exist until proven the other way. I guess that's what seperates an atheist from someone agnostic...
If there was one, and it was of the sort that would damn me for not going against my own intuition and believing in it, then I would have myself damned as a statement against it's petty childishness.
I don't believe in the existence of God... but say God did exist. If God existed and punished me for not believing in God, then that God is an evil God and I would rather suffer its consequences that obey an evil entity. A God, to me, is like a parent--the ultimate parent. Just like a good parent, God should not hurt you for something that you believe. This is especially true given that there is no proof and humans are somewhat rational. So if God did exist, I don't think God will really punish atheists or agnostic people. Even if God did punish us, it would be very minor compared to the punishment you will receive for your immoral deeds. For instance, a religious person who kills others (like the Christian fundamentalists or the Islamic fundamentalists, or the hindu fundamentalists, etc) will probably suffer a greater punishment than an athest who simply didn't believe in God. As long as an athiest is "moral", I can't see God punishing you that much:)
First of all, don't forget that immigrants may be skilled. They might have had decent jobs, had businesses, etc back in their native land. Sure they may not have good language skills but how do you know they didn't work in a business before? How do you know they didn't own a shop back home? And so forth.
As far as money is concerned, people just save as much as they can. Most immigrants save more than non-immigrants. The Korean couple probably just poured all their savings into the business.
Lastly--and most importantly--the shop probably makes little money. The shopkeepers probably won't own expensive cars and houses. They probably just make enough (similar to a factor worker). The advantage, of course, is that you are your own boss.
As far as you not looking into it, I agree that it is a tough position for you. If you are a sole income for your family, I would stay away. The VAST MAJORITY of the businesses fail.
As you also point out, you need to be an entrepreneur. I personally don't think this is as big of a block. You can always partner with someone else who has the business skills while you do something else (like the technical or something). But one thing is for certain: one of you need to have entrepreneurial skills.
I do not know anything about US stuff (I'm from Canada--but I don't know that much about Canadian law either). But if what you are saying is true, then why would anyone go with a sole proprietorship? Why do they even exist? What you are saying makes no sense. Sole proprietorships will simply dissapear if what you are saying is true.
NOTE: I am not saying you are wrong. I'm just questioning how that can be. Perhaps you are leaving out some criteria (eg. perhaps what you are saying is true iff your company makes more than $100,000 in sales--I just made this up)).
How can you think and analyze things rationally if you haven't mastered the basic tool of rational thinking - language?
How is language rational? I find very little in it.
In any case, thinking rationally is not the only way to do things. Being creative (which is generally irrational) can be good too. It all depends what you are trying to accomplish. People are different. An architect (of a building) probably isn't very rational but a mathematician is very rational. A musician probably isn't very rational but a writer of instruction manuals probably is.
You sound like a good person to start a new company. If you can come up with new ideas, you just need to find another software developer and you'll be set.
Although, do keep in mind that a good business analysis should be done before plunging into anything. If someone doesn't have business experienced, they can read some books/websites, or visit their local small business organization (governments usually have some organization for entrepreneurs; govt also have free seminars on taxes, and other things that will help you).
With your thermostat-thingie idea, I think you would fail one of the early business requirements (although this is just MY OPINION). What is the potential market size for your product? Probably (almost) negligible. How many people use outlook to manage their lives? How many people use electronic thermostats? I'm guessing not many would be interested in your product (although this is just a guess). Furthermore, can you make money off it? I'm not too sure. If you are saving hundreads or thousands of dollars in energy then you can clearly sell your product for some decent money. But if you only save, say, $100 per year, how much can you sell your product for? And would anyone be interested?
I'm sure management considers the political environment. It is one of the first things you consider when it comes to foreign trade. The situation in India isn't bad (I'm not there though). In any case, if war risk was the primary threat, why not move to the safest location on earth? I mean, why go to China (which is another risky scenario)? Or Japan (which is also somewhat risky due to North Korea)? The answer is that these risks are minor. If anything, the movement of currency on foreign exchange markets probably has a much larger impact that these.
I have previously mentioned my theory that USA (and other countries) might have to devalue their currency. I'm not a capitalist so a lot of capitalism is totally bogus, but how can a country like USA stay competitive if the wages in, say, China are 10x lower? Devaluing the currency is the only capitalist measure (protectionism/tariffs/etc are anti-capitalist) to remain competitive. Devaluing the currency will significantly increase the cost of imports while enhancing exports.
Apart from the controversy of devaluing (Americans would lose the value of their assets), it might bring down capitalism with it. The US dollar is tied into so many things that devluation will impact nearly everything. Starting with a mess in the oil markets (look into something call petroldollar), it will impact US debt, world trade, and so forth. If US dollar devalues, USA will probably default on its debt. I claim that if USA defaults on its debt, capitalism will collapse.
Capitalists always cite innovation as the answer to everything. Since I'm not a capitalist I don't buy even 1% of that argument.
There can only be a small finite number of innovators. There will always be less innovator jobs than anything else. I guess the capitalist view (hope?) is that innovation leads to the creation of a new industry that did not exist before. It remains to be seen how this plays out given my theory that countries cannot grow infinitely as capitalists claim.
Furthermore, what's to stop someone else in another country from innovating? Unless others are genetically or environmentally/socially inferior (clearly not), I don't see how innovation will work for one person but not the other.
On top of that, in most religions, if you love God and are a true believer, there is nothing to fear from God. The people who fear God usually aren't really true theists... ask a priest/cleric/brahim/whatever if he/she fears God. They will say no...
Technically, Usama bin Laden didn't issue a fatwa. He cannot--he is not a priest. What he did issue was some sort of global plan. I don't think he would stop killing others because he is against infidels. Supposedly Americans are infidels. This is kind of ironic given that Christianity and Islam are the same religion and believe in the same God. The true infidels are atheists, agnostics, hindus, buddists, etc.
Having said all that, if USA did not meddle in the Middle East, it would face less attacks (probably none) from Al-Qaida. Usama bin Laden's primary goal is not to take over USA; it is to take over Saudi Arabia.
The whole problem between Al-Qaida and USA can be traced to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a close friend of USA*. It is in fact a client state of USA. USA controls the monarchy, provides protection to it, controls the economy, and so forth. USA does that for its imperialistic aims (especially profits from oil). On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is Usama bin Laden's enemy #1. So USA is intertwined in this whole mess. This is one of the reasons USA is targetted by Al-Qaida, and not say China or Sweden, or Spain, or whatever. USA will face a paradox with respect to Saudi Arabia in the near future. It wants to control it and wants its oil (not for its own needs but to sell to countries like China and India). But on the other hand, it cannot really invade Saudi Arabia. Invading would set off a holy war (imagine bombing Mecca and Medina) so it cannot do much. It remains to be seen what path USA will take.
(* Saudia Arabia is arguably a closer friend to USA than even Canada. Whenever a Canadian Prime Minister asks for a meeting, he is put at the bottom of the list. Whenever the Saudi monarch asks for a visit, time is made the next day)
Voting matters only insofar as preventing a revolt is concerned. You have to provide an illusion of democracy, with voting, multiple parties, and so forth. Even brainwashed masses will start revolting if they are not shown these things.
I mean, even the worst governments allow voting with multiple parties. Even Saddam Hussien, one of the worst dictators in recent memory, allowed voting. There were also multiple parties. One can also look at Stalin, arguably the top totalitarian in centuries. Believe it or not, there was some sort of "democracy" (however bogus) during his tenure. People actually had meetings with the representatives, they voted on issues, and so forth. People even "elected" their local representative. The government of USSR had a parliament which voted on things. Of course, the votes were pre-determined but of course, that's beside the point. The show is what matters.
As long as money rules, you cannot have a democracy. No other way around it. If you need to be a millionaire, or have the ability to raise millions (which pretty much means you are part of the elite class), in order to run for US presidency, that's not democracy.
First of all, the vast majority of the Patriot Act will not be ruled unconstitutional. I'm just speculating on that but I have a strong feeling I'm right.
Passing the act had nothing to do with pleasing public opinion because no one heard of it until civil libertarians, liberals, and others started complaining. In fact, most people still don't know anything about it. An action to please the public is invading Iraq (because they have no clue what Usama bin Laden is up to). Passing the Patriot Act is hardly that.
As far as the reason is concerned, it's pretty much a power grab (a reason you attempted to exclude). Governments will do anything they can to gain more power. That is almost a truism. Even the BEST governments attempt to grab more power.
I'm not criticizing these countries. I'm just saying that's how it is. The fact of the matter is, people you meet online, the foreign press you read, etc are generally elitist views.
Bulgaria, regardless of what you believe, is poor. It comes nowhere near Spain or Greece (BTW, Spain is near the top). I know this because people I meet from there (either online or in real life (eg. immigrants)) say it. Most people are struggling to make a living and goverment is highly corrupt. Hopefully joining the EU will help it.
Iraq (and the whole middle east) is a weird case. Countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other oil producing countries are VERY rich. But the autocratic regimes in those countries (often instituted and backed by USA (now), Britain (before)) oppress the people and loot the national resources. Iraq was more developed than some other countries in the region but I would say it was below Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. Even in the 70's, I'm not sure if Iraq would be counted as developed. In any case, Iraq is a rich country and most importantly, more liberal, than many Middle Eastern countries. Unless USA imposes an autocrat (like the Shah in Iran), Iraq should be able to rebound.
I am not implying that struggling or poor countries are destined to be so. They will rise up one day. I also am not saying people in these countries are dumb, stupid, bad, or anything like that. These people are no different from anyone else. They just face a difficult environment. I am from one such country (probably worse than Bulgaria or Iraq) so don't mistaken me as an elitist looking down upon others. All I'm saying is, what you see online is titled towards the higher end.
Thanks for clarifying those points. I learned something.
I myself am an atheist. My reason for being one is slightly different. I approach it from a scientific point of view. As long as you follow the path of science, I don't think you can really follow religion. Those that follow both are hypocrites. The classic controversy, at least in Western religion vs science, would the Theory of Evolution. On top of that, there are even more conflicts. Who created the earth? God? Or is it just some gases that came into being under gravity (as science claims)? Another way of putting this, I don't believe in God because God cannot be shown to exist.
In case you are wondering, a hobby of mine is criticising door-to-door God salesmen for their hypocracy in failing to observe the teachings in their own book.
Door to door religious conversion? Haven't met many but once or twice, I did get into a debate of the existence of God. Raising the possibility of God not existing pretty much makes them dissapear;)
Only temporarily though. Elections are supposed to be coming up in a few months. Chretien retired and Paul Martin took over. So he wasn't elected as Prime Minister or anything... although, he is supposed to win by a landslide when the election is held.
In other news, the Canadian Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives, now called Conservative Party. So there is only one conservative party in Canada (not counting obscure ones like Libertarian party, Family Coalition party, etc--not sure if these are federal or not).
I think Al-Qaida's 3rd goal was to create an Islamic federation of sorts throughout the whole world. Since they are unlikely to take over the whole world (last person that came close was Genghis Khan and he didn't even take over 1/2), I imagine Al-Qaida is just trying to create an Islamic empire out of the muslim countries.
I think you are right in saying that Al-Qaida is not trying to create a totalitarian state out of USA per se. However, if USA switches to totalitarianism, it will help Al-Qaida because it will be prophetic. USA will become everything that Al-Qaida says USA is* (brutal, evil, kills people, etc).
(* This is what Al-Qaida says USA is but in reality USA isn't. But if USA becomes what Al-Qaida says it is (but presently isn't), it will help Al-Qaida tremendously. I don't know if this is clear. Other examples might help. Communism is the enemy of capitalism. Capitalists claimed communism was something that wasn't (in the 1800's and early 1900's), particularly during the war in Russia between the Red Army and the White Army. However communism became what it was claimed to be and wasn't before. That pretty much destroyed communism. A similar thing happened to fascism but since fascists lost WWII, it was an abrupt end with no decline.)
I'm not speaking hypothetically, I'm speaking of actual would-be mass-murderers who have been caught and stopped because of our improved enforcement efforts.
Since you are not talking about hypothetical examples, maybe you should provide some real examples.
At least look on the bright side;)... even if they had debated it, they would have still passed it. At least now, you can make yourself feel good by pretending that it was only passed because it wasn't read;)
Slashdot Mirror
True... but I'm talking MASSIVE devaluation... I'm also talking about relative to poorer countries. It isn't going to happen NOW. All I'm saying is that it will be difficult for rich countries to stay competitive with poorer ones as the world becomes more capitalistic (i.e. free markets, easier flow of capital, less taxes, privatization of nearly every aspect of society, etc). It remains to be seen if I'm right--don't bet your life savings on this :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER)
:) ... so who exactly is "we"? Are you talking about a country? Region? Capitalists?
;)
I, for one, am perfectly satisfied if you continue to hold to your current beliefs... In 20 years, we will still be selling you the ideas that make the world work.
You don't know who I am, what I am, or where I am
I'm very sad that you have so little faith in the creative prowess of the average worker...
I have a lot of faith in the worker... where I lack faith is the system.
why else would there be things like automatic garage openers, remote controls, etc if the average person didn't recognize a need for a time saving device. The "benevolent" government did not create these things...
The government (as represented by people) DID create many things. The VAST MAJORITY of scientific research that led to the creation of many technologies were funded by government (using taxpayer money). In case you forgot, universities are still funded by government (although corporations at taking over).
In any case, people have been discovering things for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Long before capitalism showed up. Even people under fascist (eg. Germany) and Communist (eg. USSR) were discovering things.
Without competition, there is no drive to improve on the existing system, and you will stagnate and your empire will decline.
Empires hardly have any competition. Historically this is how it has been. The top countries/regions/kingdoms had very little competition. In fact one can argue that countries/kingdoms/whatever become empires by totally destroying its competition (and ending up as a monoploy of sorts).
Furthermore, if competition is what is desired, why do countries like USA invade other countries? When USA can't "compete" in the oil market, just invade other countries! When Russia wanted some resources, just invade Poland under the guise of "democracy" and "liberation". If USA, for example, wanted competition it would not meddle in the Middle East. If it wanted competition, it would not keep the embargo against Cuba (which was instituted due to heavy lobbying by some US fruit company).
Overall, I support cooperation over competition. Competition can be good in the realm of the small, say between different companies, or different individuals. But when it happens on the large scale (eg. on the planetary level, or between countries), one country always invades the other or destroys it and turns it into a monopoly. Do you really think USA, as a country, wants competition in any of its industries? Absolutely not. This goes for any country.
there is a strong sense of "we want to be the best", such that when another nation gains a perceived technological lead, the USA will garner to improve itself, thus jobs and wealth are created, and the system improves.
See... my point is that every country can and does do that.
I, for one, am perfectly satisfied if you continue to hold to your current beliefs...
The system that you cherish (capitalism) is going to collapse. Yes, I'm just a fool preaching the impending doom. But as they say, fools are wise
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think that spirituality and science have any overlap at all.
:)
What exactly is spirituality? Given that practically all religions comment on reality and metaphysics (eg. physics, biology, etc), what would be the "spiritual way"? Even Eastern religions that are "vague" and don't deal much with metaphysics (eg. buddism) conflict with science.
I think (and of course this is my own interpretation) that since I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, it would be foolish to make a stong assertion either way.
Every rational thought we have is tilted towards the sceptical side. Not believing in God would be consistent with that (unless there is some proof that tilts the view). If I say that an alien is beside you in your room watching you read this, would you believe that the alien exists? The answer is NO. We tend to follow that thinking because we don't believe something that doesn't exist. Therfore, I would argue that not believing in God is more logical than believing in God. If you do believe in both positions equally, then you should also believe that there is a possibility that an alien is in your room.
We have no proof of either side. BUT I lean strongly in the direction that is "positive". If you start claiming something exists, the onus is on you. I would rather believe that something does not exist until proven the other way. I guess that's what seperates an atheist from someone agnostic...
If there was one, and it was of the sort that would damn me for not going against my own intuition and believing in it, then I would have myself damned as a statement against it's petty childishness.
I don't believe in the existence of God... but say God did exist. If God existed and punished me for not believing in God, then that God is an evil God and I would rather suffer its consequences that obey an evil entity. A God, to me, is like a parent--the ultimate parent. Just like a good parent, God should not hurt you for something that you believe. This is especially true given that there is no proof and humans are somewhat rational. So if God did exist, I don't think God will really punish atheists or agnostic people. Even if God did punish us, it would be very minor compared to the punishment you will receive for your immoral deeds. For instance, a religious person who kills others (like the Christian fundamentalists or the Islamic fundamentalists, or the hindu fundamentalists, etc) will probably suffer a greater punishment than an athest who simply didn't believe in God. As long as an athiest is "moral", I can't see God punishing you that much
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, don't forget that immigrants may be skilled. They might have had decent jobs, had businesses, etc back in their native land. Sure they may not have good language skills but how do you know they didn't work in a business before? How do you know they didn't own a shop back home? And so forth.
As far as money is concerned, people just save as much as they can. Most immigrants save more than non-immigrants. The Korean couple probably just poured all their savings into the business.
Lastly--and most importantly--the shop probably makes little money. The shopkeepers probably won't own expensive cars and houses. They probably just make enough (similar to a factor worker). The advantage, of course, is that you are your own boss.
As far as you not looking into it, I agree that it is a tough position for you. If you are a sole income for your family, I would stay away. The VAST MAJORITY of the businesses fail.
As you also point out, you need to be an entrepreneur. I personally don't think this is as big of a block. You can always partner with someone else who has the business skills while you do something else (like the technical or something). But one thing is for certain: one of you need to have entrepreneurial skills.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I do not know anything about US stuff (I'm from Canada--but I don't know that much about Canadian law either). But if what you are saying is true, then why would anyone go with a sole proprietorship? Why do they even exist? What you are saying makes no sense. Sole proprietorships will simply dissapear if what you are saying is true.
NOTE: I am not saying you are wrong. I'm just questioning how that can be. Perhaps you are leaving out some criteria (eg. perhaps what you are saying is true iff your company makes more than $100,000 in sales--I just made this up)).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How can you think and analyze things rationally if you haven't mastered the basic tool of rational thinking - language?
How is language rational? I find very little in it.
In any case, thinking rationally is not the only way to do things. Being creative (which is generally irrational) can be good too. It all depends what you are trying to accomplish. People are different. An architect (of a building) probably isn't very rational but a mathematician is very rational. A musician probably isn't very rational but a writer of instruction manuals probably is.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You sound like a good person to start a new company. If you can come up with new ideas, you just need to find another software developer and you'll be set.
Although, do keep in mind that a good business analysis should be done before plunging into anything. If someone doesn't have business experienced, they can read some books/websites, or visit their local small business organization (governments usually have some organization for entrepreneurs; govt also have free seminars on taxes, and other things that will help you).
With your thermostat-thingie idea, I think you would fail one of the early business requirements (although this is just MY OPINION). What is the potential market size for your product? Probably (almost) negligible. How many people use outlook to manage their lives? How many people use electronic thermostats? I'm guessing not many would be interested in your product (although this is just a guess). Furthermore, can you make money off it? I'm not too sure. If you are saving hundreads or thousands of dollars in energy then you can clearly sell your product for some decent money. But if you only save, say, $100 per year, how much can you sell your product for? And would anyone be interested?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm probably one of the most politically correct persons around here... but even I find that funny...entertainment customer service...lol hehe :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm sure management considers the political environment. It is one of the first things you consider when it comes to foreign trade. The situation in India isn't bad (I'm not there though). In any case, if war risk was the primary threat, why not move to the safest location on earth? I mean, why go to China (which is another risky scenario)? Or Japan (which is also somewhat risky due to North Korea)? The answer is that these risks are minor. If anything, the movement of currency on foreign exchange markets probably has a much larger impact that these.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have previously mentioned my theory that USA (and other countries) might have to devalue their currency. I'm not a capitalist so a lot of capitalism is totally bogus, but how can a country like USA stay competitive if the wages in, say, China are 10x lower? Devaluing the currency is the only capitalist measure (protectionism/tariffs/etc are anti-capitalist) to remain competitive. Devaluing the currency will significantly increase the cost of imports while enhancing exports.
Apart from the controversy of devaluing (Americans would lose the value of their assets), it might bring down capitalism with it. The US dollar is tied into so many things that devluation will impact nearly everything. Starting with a mess in the oil markets (look into something call petroldollar), it will impact US debt, world trade, and so forth. If US dollar devalues, USA will probably default on its debt. I claim that if USA defaults on its debt, capitalism will collapse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is a very good article. Well written and interesting.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalists always cite innovation as the answer to everything. Since I'm not a capitalist I don't buy even 1% of that argument.
There can only be a small finite number of innovators. There will always be less innovator jobs than anything else. I guess the capitalist view (hope?) is that innovation leads to the creation of a new industry that did not exist before. It remains to be seen how this plays out given my theory that countries cannot grow infinitely as capitalists claim.
Furthermore, what's to stop someone else in another country from innovating? Unless others are genetically or environmentally/socially inferior (clearly not), I don't see how innovation will work for one person but not the other.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
On top of that, in most religions, if you love God and are a true believer, there is nothing to fear from God. The people who fear God usually aren't really true theists... ask a priest/cleric/brahim/whatever if he/she fears God. They will say no...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Technically, Usama bin Laden didn't issue a fatwa. He cannot--he is not a priest. What he did issue was some sort of global plan. I don't think he would stop killing others because he is against infidels. Supposedly Americans are infidels. This is kind of ironic given that Christianity and Islam are the same religion and believe in the same God. The true infidels are atheists, agnostics, hindus, buddists, etc.
Having said all that, if USA did not meddle in the Middle East, it would face less attacks (probably none) from Al-Qaida. Usama bin Laden's primary goal is not to take over USA; it is to take over Saudi Arabia.
The whole problem between Al-Qaida and USA can be traced to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a close friend of USA*. It is in fact a client state of USA. USA controls the monarchy, provides protection to it, controls the economy, and so forth. USA does that for its imperialistic aims (especially profits from oil). On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is Usama bin Laden's enemy #1. So USA is intertwined in this whole mess. This is one of the reasons USA is targetted by Al-Qaida, and not say China or Sweden, or Spain, or whatever. USA will face a paradox with respect to Saudi Arabia in the near future. It wants to control it and wants its oil (not for its own needs but to sell to countries like China and India). But on the other hand, it cannot really invade Saudi Arabia. Invading would set off a holy war (imagine bombing Mecca and Medina) so it cannot do much. It remains to be seen what path USA will take.
(* Saudia Arabia is arguably a closer friend to USA than even Canada. Whenever a Canadian Prime Minister asks for a meeting, he is put at the bottom of the list. Whenever the Saudi monarch asks for a visit, time is made the next day)
Sivaram Velauthapillai Sivaram Velauthapillai
Voting matters only insofar as preventing a revolt is concerned. You have to provide an illusion of democracy, with voting, multiple parties, and so forth. Even brainwashed masses will start revolting if they are not shown these things.
I mean, even the worst governments allow voting with multiple parties. Even Saddam Hussien, one of the worst dictators in recent memory, allowed voting. There were also multiple parties. One can also look at Stalin, arguably the top totalitarian in centuries. Believe it or not, there was some sort of "democracy" (however bogus) during his tenure. People actually had meetings with the representatives, they voted on issues, and so forth. People even "elected" their local representative. The government of USSR had a parliament which voted on things. Of course, the votes were pre-determined but of course, that's beside the point. The show is what matters.
As long as money rules, you cannot have a democracy. No other way around it. If you need to be a millionaire, or have the ability to raise millions (which pretty much means you are part of the elite class), in order to run for US presidency, that's not democracy.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, the vast majority of the Patriot Act will not be ruled unconstitutional. I'm just speculating on that but I have a strong feeling I'm right.
Passing the act had nothing to do with pleasing public opinion because no one heard of it until civil libertarians, liberals, and others started complaining. In fact, most people still don't know anything about it. An action to please the public is invading Iraq (because they have no clue what Usama bin Laden is up to). Passing the Patriot Act is hardly that.
As far as the reason is concerned, it's pretty much a power grab (a reason you attempted to exclude). Governments will do anything they can to gain more power. That is almost a truism. Even the BEST governments attempt to grab more power.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not criticizing these countries. I'm just saying that's how it is. The fact of the matter is, people you meet online, the foreign press you read, etc are generally elitist views.
Bulgaria, regardless of what you believe, is poor. It comes nowhere near Spain or Greece (BTW, Spain is near the top). I know this because people I meet from there (either online or in real life (eg. immigrants)) say it. Most people are struggling to make a living and goverment is highly corrupt. Hopefully joining the EU will help it.
Iraq (and the whole middle east) is a weird case. Countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other oil producing countries are VERY rich. But the autocratic regimes in those countries (often instituted and backed by USA (now), Britain (before)) oppress the people and loot the national resources. Iraq was more developed than some other countries in the region but I would say it was below Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. Even in the 70's, I'm not sure if Iraq would be counted as developed. In any case, Iraq is a rich country and most importantly, more liberal, than many Middle Eastern countries. Unless USA imposes an autocrat (like the Shah in Iran), Iraq should be able to rebound.
I am not implying that struggling or poor countries are destined to be so. They will rise up one day. I also am not saying people in these countries are dumb, stupid, bad, or anything like that. These people are no different from anyone else. They just face a difficult environment. I am from one such country (probably worse than Bulgaria or Iraq) so don't mistaken me as an elitist looking down upon others. All I'm saying is, what you see online is titled towards the higher end.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Thanks for clarifying those points. I learned something.
;)
I myself am an atheist. My reason for being one is slightly different. I approach it from a scientific point of view. As long as you follow the path of science, I don't think you can really follow religion. Those that follow both are hypocrites. The classic controversy, at least in Western religion vs science, would the Theory of Evolution. On top of that, there are even more conflicts. Who created the earth? God? Or is it just some gases that came into being under gravity (as science claims)? Another way of putting this, I don't believe in God because God cannot be shown to exist.
In case you are wondering, a hobby of mine is criticising door-to-door God salesmen for their hypocracy in failing to observe the teachings in their own book.
Door to door religious conversion? Haven't met many but once or twice, I did get into a debate of the existence of God. Raising the possibility of God not existing pretty much makes them dissapear
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Only temporarily though. Elections are supposed to be coming up in a few months. Chretien retired and Paul Martin took over. So he wasn't elected as Prime Minister or anything... although, he is supposed to win by a landslide when the election is held.
In other news, the Canadian Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives, now called Conservative Party. So there is only one conservative party in Canada (not counting obscure ones like Libertarian party, Family Coalition party, etc--not sure if these are federal or not).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
hmm... did Bush just imply that courts should be ignored?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Next time, Mr. Ahar, might want to consider attempting to make more secure travel arrangements when traveling to unfriendly parts of the world.
Yes I agree. Everyone should just boycott any flights that go through USA from now on. Everyone on Slashdot take note. No more flights through USA.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think Al-Qaida's 3rd goal was to create an Islamic federation of sorts throughout the whole world. Since they are unlikely to take over the whole world (last person that came close was Genghis Khan and he didn't even take over 1/2), I imagine Al-Qaida is just trying to create an Islamic empire out of the muslim countries.
I think you are right in saying that Al-Qaida is not trying to create a totalitarian state out of USA per se. However, if USA switches to totalitarianism, it will help Al-Qaida because it will be prophetic. USA will become everything that Al-Qaida says USA is* (brutal, evil, kills people, etc).
(* This is what Al-Qaida says USA is but in reality USA isn't. But if USA becomes what Al-Qaida says it is (but presently isn't), it will help Al-Qaida tremendously. I don't know if this is clear. Other examples might help. Communism is the enemy of capitalism. Capitalists claimed communism was something that wasn't (in the 1800's and early 1900's), particularly during the war in Russia between the Red Army and the White Army. However communism became what it was claimed to be and wasn't before. That pretty much destroyed communism. A similar thing happened to fascism but since fascists lost WWII, it was an abrupt end with no decline.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have a feeling that the Canadian government is at fault with the Arar case. I doubt that USA violated their own law. Remains to be seen...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seems like we cross paths again...
I'm not speaking hypothetically, I'm speaking of actual would-be mass-murderers who have been caught and stopped because of our improved enforcement efforts.
Since you are not talking about hypothetical examples, maybe you should provide some real examples.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
At least look on the bright side ;) ... even if they had debated it, they would have still passed it. At least now, you can make yourself feel good by pretending that it was only passed because it wasn't read ;)
:(
Yes folks, it's that bad
Sivaram Velauthapillai