Actually, the Japanese bureaucracy differs from the U.S. pretty dramatically in a couple of ways. First of all, the Japanese actually perceive bureaucratic jobs as prestigious. As such, despite the pay differential, the government still attracts and retains the high achievers from schools. For readers not from the U.S., Americans typically associate bureaucratic jobs with job-security and ineffective performance.
Secondly, while many Americans believe that the government is hopelessly in bed with corporate interests (in particular the current administration), the U.S. government actually does strive for balance. In comparison, the Japanese government is shamelessly pro-business; the idea of domestic antitrust action is relatively new and foreign. The story behind NTT and the Japanese government is a well used (and complicated for the non-Japanese) case study for international business.
As a side note, high level bureaucrats in Japan often do finally receive financial rewards later in life when they retire from government service and land cushy private sector jobs. There is an idiom that describes this as, loosely translated, "descending from heaven."
I despise much of Bush's policies, but seeing supposedly "progressive" elitist crap like this makes me sick. We talk about the horrors of voter disenfranchisement, but then trash voters whose IQ might be below 90? Surveys show that the Democratic party, on average, is significantly better educated than the Republican party-- I fear it might be simply the Democrats driving away the "inferior" people with their intellectual disdain.
News flash. Constitution says: one person, one vote. Your vote isn't more important just 'cuz you were fortunate enough to attend college.
I used to be a T-Mobile subscriber; excellent customer service. I'm unsure, however, if they have data with their "Pay as you go" program. Otherwise it fits your requirements.
It is true that voting history is more complex than a straight "yes/no" in support of a particular issue. Nonetheless, short of looking at how they spend money to support causes, it is the best concrete method of determining a senator or representative's leanings and decision making process. As the judicial branch will attest, the number one thing in interpreting statues is what the legislature actually put into the text they voted on. What politicians say they mean and how they posture in public is of much less importance.
If you've been following politics for any amount of time, you'll know that that the above comment adds pretty much no value. Individual politicians can ALWAYS find flaws in legislation-- problem is, you've gotta compromise in order to get things passed. It's tough not living in a dictatorship.
I second Daimaou's general idea. If you were subjected to the debate last Thursday, Kerry was pretty articulate on this matter. He saw the same evidence Bush saw and came to the same conclusion. Kerry claims he differs regarding the level diplomacy and coalition building prior to sending the ground forces in.
On the flip side, I disagree in that I do believe Kerry has explained to some extent the changes he wishes to make regarding Iraq. Given that he is not Bush, I do believe he'll have an easier time at making international policy changes.
Unfortunately, this is the Middle East we're talking about, and the overall historical track record for that area isn't promising, no matter who America thinks is in charge.
There is no question that American agricultural subsidies and protectionism are completely screwed up and hurting both American consumers and the international market for agricultural products. For someone to blame this on our electoral college and our senator election method, however, is hard to fathom. Take a look at the other major wealthy, developed nations-- Europe and Japan have even worse policies regarding agricultural supports and tariffs. The question is, why is this?
During the time period of the Great Depression, many economies around the world were suffering greatly, and the agricultural sector in particular was hurt globally. Countries responded by passing extremely harsh anti-trade legislation to try to protect their own economies through "screw-your-neighbor" terms of trade. After WWII, politicians wised up and starting relaxing these trade barriers, but many countries were afraid to expose their agricultural sector to greater risks. Effectively, farmers had suffered enough, and they hadn't gotten a big jumpstart from the industrial war effort. As such, trade liberalization occurred primarily in the manufacturing sector.
All the crap you see today with agriculture is a legacy of that ultraprotectionist era, and developing countries still pay the price today. There is some hope with the latest Doha round of trade talks, but don't expect any major changes soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, while many Americans believe that the government is hopelessly in bed with corporate interests (in particular the current administration), the U.S. government actually does strive for balance. In comparison, the Japanese government is shamelessly pro-business; the idea of domestic antitrust action is relatively new and foreign. The story behind NTT and the Japanese government is a well used (and complicated for the non-Japanese) case study for international business.
As a side note, high level bureaucrats in Japan often do finally receive financial rewards later in life when they retire from government service and land cushy private sector jobs. There is an idiom that describes this as, loosely translated, "descending from heaven."
News flash. Constitution says: one person, one vote. Your vote isn't more important just 'cuz you were fortunate enough to attend college.
I used to be a T-Mobile subscriber; excellent customer service. I'm unsure, however, if they have data with their "Pay as you go" program. Otherwise it fits your requirements.
It is true that voting history is more complex than a straight "yes/no" in support of a particular issue. Nonetheless, short of looking at how they spend money to support causes, it is the best concrete method of determining a senator or representative's leanings and decision making process. As the judicial branch will attest, the number one thing in interpreting statues is what the legislature actually put into the text they voted on. What politicians say they mean and how they posture in public is of much less importance.
If you've been following politics for any amount of time, you'll know that that the above comment adds pretty much no value. Individual politicians can ALWAYS find flaws in legislation-- problem is, you've gotta compromise in order to get things passed. It's tough not living in a dictatorship.
On the flip side, I disagree in that I do believe Kerry has explained to some extent the changes he wishes to make regarding Iraq. Given that he is not Bush, I do believe he'll have an easier time at making international policy changes.
Unfortunately, this is the Middle East we're talking about, and the overall historical track record for that area isn't promising, no matter who America thinks is in charge.
During the time period of the Great Depression, many economies around the world were suffering greatly, and the agricultural sector in particular was hurt globally. Countries responded by passing extremely harsh anti-trade legislation to try to protect their own economies through "screw-your-neighbor" terms of trade. After WWII, politicians wised up and starting relaxing these trade barriers, but many countries were afraid to expose their agricultural sector to greater risks. Effectively, farmers had suffered enough, and they hadn't gotten a big jumpstart from the industrial war effort. As such, trade liberalization occurred primarily in the manufacturing sector.
All the crap you see today with agriculture is a legacy of that ultraprotectionist era, and developing countries still pay the price today. There is some hope with the latest Doha round of trade talks, but don't expect any major changes soon.