Enjoy your day.

While the current state of Iraq is nothing to boast about – the idea that it is set back several decades would hold true if you made the case it was advancing under Hussein. What you had, to borrow from Christopher Hitchens, was a Mafia enterprise masquerading as a state. An enterprise that destabilized the region for over 20 years, and having worn out its welcome, was efficiently toppled. But the same military which is so good at eliminating enemies is ill-suited to forming consensual government in the Arab world.

New Orleans – since Katrina hit several states, why didn’t we similar levels of chaos in other states? Did the feds do a better job in Mississippi? Hardly, but other levels of government did not atrophy in neighboring states as they did in Louisiana. Blaming Bush for decades of corruption in New Orleans is a stretch.

The earth – whoa – now we are ascribing God-like powers to a man who holds office for 4 years in a term. For all the paranoia about global warming, more children will die from insect-borne infectious diseases, because DDT has been banned due to environmentalist pressure. So nations in Africa, which could save their kids lives with modest spraying of DDT, instead have to yield to the orthodoxy of environmentalists safely living in Western countries. They now seems to set their sights on China and India, which are lowering poverty levels at a rapid clip, but that advancement keeps environmentalists in the West awake at night. All those Indians and Chinese people driving cars – why can’t they be content with walking and bicycles like generations before?

As for the bureaucrats – when did they have a right to lifetime employment? India is full of bureacrats, some of whom probably pre-date independence. Did India’s condition improve because of the quality of its bureaucrats, or due to the quality of its entrepreneurs? The Great Society ballooned the number of bureaucrats, and many social conditions worsened.

Of course, this all started out with a discussion about one man’s birthday. Apparently, even a birthday is no reason to skip a Festivus-style Airing of Grievances.

How’s this–he has slightly above-average intelligence (higher SAT scores than Gore) but a mentality ill-suited for making strategic and/or weight decisions. He also has too much faith in loyalty, and as a result has surrounded himself with vicarious megalomaniacs, fantasists, and incompetents who have, among other things, set back several areas (Iraq, New Orleans, the earth) decades. While doing so, his administration has managed to push out many of the well qualified bureaucrats who were maintaining the state machinery for decades, thereby losing a hell of a lot of human capital and furthering this process along.

Enjoy your day.

that is part of what i was referring to… it is true that we are stepping in that direction, but it is a needle in a haystack… there is a lot to be debated here and your example is very broad… anyway, that is beside the point of this thread and i need to focus on my deadline!

how much longer can we keep on growing as an imbalanced global society? as we progress towards critical mass, some would argue that socialism is the way of tomorrow

We are adressing this imbalance thru free trade and globalization. for example, US maufacturing pay rates have beeen forced down to international norms, to the great benefit of poorer nations.

But if by “critical mass” you mean natural resources becoming scare, this is a big if. The Malthusian disaster was supposeed to happen a long time ago, but technological developments have made the use of existing resources more efficient or replaced them w/ resources cheaper and more plentiful.

Julian simon argued that population is a benefit, not a cost…ie, the more people the greater likelihood for a scientific developemnt. This is why he won his famous bet w/ Paul Ehrlich. (they bet on the price of 5 metals. if theses resources were to become scarce their prices would increase. They went down)

Given your past views on the Bill of Rights I consider it laughable that you are now coming to the defense of the founding fathers.

Considering that I’ve laughed your humour many times, I’m glad to be of service this once, even though your laughter may have been in derision.

Founding Fathers were correct in many human aspects which do not change with time and technology. They were short-sighted in aspects which change with time and technology.

Empire building is a useless exercise which cause misery to everyone involved. It was true during Ceasar, true for the British, true today and it will be true ten thousand years from now when we will have Star Wars technology. So the founding fathers were right on that one.

Money for nothing, unfair taxation etc, are bad for everyone. It was true during Roman times, true during the Founding Fathers’ time, true today and will be true a million years from now. The impending collapse of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare etc vindicates the stand of Founding Fathers.

Now where they lacked vision (not necessarily faulting them), was the method of warfare and the technological changes which would make some of their assumptions obsolete. They lived in a time where an enemy had to ride for weeks on horseback or travel for months in a ship to attack. They lived in a time where almost everyone raised their own chicken, farmed their own products and drew their own water. Hence, economy and resources were largely de-centralised. Everyone knew everyone else and privacy was non-existent beyond the doorstep of the house.

Hence, they did not foresee an enemy who could sit ten-thousand miles away and with the click of a remote kill millions of people. They could not foresee an enemy who could cripple the world’s financial systems, poison large dams or bomb trains and planes. Hence, they did not foresee any reason for a pre-emptive war unless the attack took place. In fact, “war” in their dictionary meant engagement with a country, with a king/queen and an army. They did not foresee an ideological war, where the enemy had no country, no place and was willing to sacrifice self for a nebulous cause.

This is where we need to revise some of Founding Fathers assumptions. Nothing can be frozen in time – especially things that change with technology.

M. Nam

how much longer can we keep on growing as an imbalanced global society? as we progress towards critical mass, some would argue that socialism is the way of tomorrow… one that may be far, but inevitable. either that or we will keep on drawing blood as we have in history.

They would be rolling over in their graves.

Founding fathers win hands down.

American concepts of individuality is what really does seperate us from the masses. It has pros and cons, but I’d take this system anyday over others.

Me too.

What I was trying to say was that it was on purpose that the Founding Fathers left us a society/country with values which were not compatible with Empire-building, simply because they themselves were victims of an Empire. They did not want Americans to make the same mistakes as the British. They wanted Americans to be individuals with self-gratifying goals who would not easily submit to authority.

Let’s see who wins: Founding Fathers or NeoCons.

M. Nam

Uh, the intelligence business is far more murky and complicated than this. Nice job in shitting on all CIA/intelligence personnel. This scenario goes both ways and in reality we’ve probably bribed more guys on the other side of the fence than the other way around. Only reason WE (the public) finds out is because this is a somewhat of an open society. Other countries simply kill the dudes without a word. What we suck at is keeping secrets for too long. Again, a side effect of being a relatively open state with a large government. But we’ve used this to our advantage, especially in the cold war when poor designs were fed to Russians who replicated/copied it even poorly.

I agree that we aren’t patient or tend to loose commitment once we take action, but that delves into how our leaders manage public opinion and use the appropriate psychological tools/triggers to maintain a positive opinion. Even in WWII everything wasn’t kumbaya. The isolationists had a pretty strong grip pre war. War bond drives not only raised money, but also kept public opinion and morale up.

“Selling” something in the information age will take more skill and effort than the past. Leaders of the world and people in general are still coming to grips with this. Truth has far more value today and how to disseminate it quickly and efficiently taking the initiative away from the opposite side, getting into their OODA loop, is something we do VERY POORLY.

By the way, the American concepts of individuality is what really does seperate us from the masses. It has pros and cons, but I’d take this system anyday over others.

YMMV