« Previous | Main | Next »

American power lives on

Justin Webb | 17:27 UK time, Thursday, 8 January 2009

Yes yes yes. The point about demography (in the penultimate paragraph) is particularly telling and often overlooked.

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 6:52pm on 08 Jan 2009, Dennis Junior wrote:
Justin:
The American power lives are still living up to the light...

As per the blog....

~Dennis Junior~

Complain about this comment
2. At 6:58pm on 08 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
"Though the US is not immune to population aging, its higher level of fertility combined with immigration gives it an enormous advantage."

Wow funny that part of what will save america is a bunch of teen pregnancies .

or the fast breeder mentality.

"in many cases low or near-zero immigration", i m not sure them in europe agree with this statement;)

Complain about this comment
3. At 7:02pm on 08 Jan 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
To Justin Webb

Some posters will be harsh with you for this blog!

I think that optimism and hope are important but I will reserve judgment for later. You have experienced some difficult days lately. I am happy you found something about which to be 'cheerful.'

Complain about this comment
4. At 7:10pm on 08 Jan 2009, Pro-Democrat wrote:
Finally, a dose of common sense. I've been getting increasingly annoyed with the doomsday people who think that the end of America as we know it is over and how China will rule the world. It's just not realistic. The recent financial crisis has proved that the old adage "When America sneezes, the world catches a cold" is still very much true today. The world is still extremely dependent on the United States.

The United States has faced greater challenges than the ones we face now, such as the Great Depression. Like the Great Depression though, the US has a unique opportunity to come out greater than ever before, as a force for good, and as a force for change. When the people get as restless with the status quo as they are now, and with new leadership coming in, I don't see how things can't get better for the US, and consequentially, the world.

Complain about this comment
5. At 7:22pm on 08 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
Seems a myopic view to me - through thousands of years, and indeed mere centuries, the centre/s of power have changed. As with past empires, America's influence will wane - China and India will someday become pre-eminent. Everybody gets a turn at being top dog!

Complain about this comment
6. At 7:57pm on 08 Jan 2009, vagueofgodalming wrote:
The world needs below-replacement fertility for a while.

I guess it's questionable, though, whether those countries that lead the way will be those that benefit most.

Complain about this comment
7. At 8:27pm on 08 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
I think the American hegemony is going to continue for a while longer. It's economy is too rich and diverse. The current success of China and India is due to America and Europe imo.

However, it's influence on world affairs is on the wane. We can see how little influence the US has on it's 'own back-yard' - South America.

Complain about this comment
8. At 8:27pm on 08 Jan 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
David_Cunard (#5), I'm not predicting imminent doom for the US, but I certainly agree with you that we should not presume perpetual dominance. The US has been in existence only about half as long as the Roman Republic, which was followed by the Roman Empire, then by the "Decline and Fall." No doubt it once seemed that Rome would dominate western Europe and the Mediterranean forever.

For that matter, humankind has dominated the Earth for a much shorter time than did the dinosaurs. It's not clear we will do as well as they, either.

Complain about this comment
9. At 8:53pm on 08 Jan 2009, stumo- wrote:
I suspect a big factor is that the US has space for more people; the UK doesn't really. (Certainly not of the same order)

Complain about this comment
10. At 9:07pm on 08 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"The point about demography (in the penultimate paragraph) is particularly telling and often overlooked."

Ah, vindication. So very rare.

Complain about this comment
11. At 9:16pm on 08 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Re #5

David,

You're assuming that the field of human government is incapable of significant improvement, that what happened in the past to take superpowers down wasn't the result of those governments' actions.

The U.S. is unique in many ways, not the least of which is that we don't have an empire. We're the first superpower not to have imperial aspirations. We really haven't expanded our territory since just after World War II. I argue that it's the cost of far flung empires that is the primary undoing of past world superpowers (including Great Britain). We don't have that issue.

Complain about this comment
12. At 9:33pm on 08 Jan 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
Interesting article...we'll see if the nation can overcome these challenges ending up stronger. But surely we won't remain in this position forever? So we had better learn to accept the fact that eventually China will take our place. So we had better start adjusting ourselves accordingly, working ever and ever closer with the Chinese toward a common future.

It wouldn't hurt us to cut the Democracy spreading crap out for a while as well...when our Democracy is perfect, then we can lecture others on how to improve theirs!!

Complain about this comment
13. At 9:36pm on 08 Jan 2009, ray564k wrote:
The way I see it- the US has become lax in its position as the only superpower in the world and neglected infrastructure, its healthcare system, where its energy is coming from etc...

Now that it has more credible rivals- energy rich Russia, and emergent China, it will be under pressure to up its game. And I think it will.

Complain about this comment
14. At 9:46pm on 08 Jan 2009, Corinini wrote:
I strongly agree about demographics favoring the U.S. The "melting pot" will only become more significant through further globalization - giving the U.S. a leg up for being inherently "international" in nature.

Oh and "happylaze" - our higher level of fertility is due a lot more in part to immigration than teen pregnancy. Immigrant populations tend to have a lot more children than other groups. And our fertility rate isn't THAT high. It's currently 2.1335 - just barely above replacement.

Stumo - you are absolutely right - and I think that is one of the reasons we have higher immigration rates as well. Not just the UK - mainland Europe is also much more densely populated.

And hey, we can still cause a global depression better than anyone else :)

Complain about this comment
15. At 10:18pm on 08 Jan 2009, BloomsburyPirate wrote:
I am extremely worried about a population which is ageing and not being replaced by an equal number of younger people.
I seem to remember reading that 40% of households in Britain are now single people, I am quite sure gay life has taken off and acceptance has made it more widespread (although perhaps just more open), than 20 years ago.

Life in a hetero couple is just so expensive now (without the addition of babies) that both partners need to work as hard as they can, and I still can't see this as fair on the kids.
I know so many people, working so hard and leaving it too late, the finding of the "right partner" and settling down anyway- myself as much as any.
I think kids may be an endangered species!

Complain about this comment
16. At 10:36pm on 08 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
12 NoRashDecisions

"It wouldn't hurt us to cut the Democracy spreading crap out for a while as well...when our Democracy is perfect, then we can lecture others on how to improve theirs!!"

Millions in the world would agree.

Complain about this comment
17. At 11:01pm on 08 Jan 2009, anilmc wrote:
It seems to me that the arguments in the CSM about the capacity for the US to "bounce back" in terms of hegemonic dominance over the international system miss the point a little.

America as an influential actor on the world stage is unlikely to disappear fast, or at all within the next few generations. The infrastructure, although aging, is still serviceable, and the civil society and culture is still vibrant. It is well armed, well-informed and well-heeled.

The problem with incessantly optimistic predictions about the US being well-placed to whether the multi-spectrum storm in which it finds itself (financial, military, ideological, ethical) is that it underestimates the extent to which new powers in each of these spheres are profiting from America's slump, even if they are not actively trying to destablise it. China benefits daily from a huge trade surplus in its relationship with the US, the Arab states still control the main source of oil and the biotech companies are at severe risk of being undercut by generic manufacturers in the south asian peninsula.

I think it is a dangerously long-term view to take to say that the demographic sustainability of US population trends will counter the poor performance of the American economic, technology and energy sectors. It's quite possible that by then the damage may have been done, and no amount of extra children borne will be able to restore the standing of the US.

Complain about this comment
18. At 11:02pm on 08 Jan 2009, labcoat_samurai wrote:
8 Gary_A_Hill wrote:

"For that matter, humankind has dominated the Earth for a much shorter time than did the dinosaurs. It's not clear we will do as well as they, either."

I've always thought that was an odd notion. As though "the dinosaurs" are appropriately lumped into one big species. Or that they "dominated the Earth" in any way that's somehow comparable to what we do :)

And how long did they dominate the moon? I think we may have the record on that at least ;)

Complain about this comment
19. At 11:02pm on 08 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
Very interesting article .... and I agree that it is not yet all over for the USA. But as Gary said (#8) all great powers rise and fall over time. The lessons of history are seldom appreciated by our leaders. The Roman Empire was basically done for partly by it's softer domestic and foreign policies following the adoption of Christianity in the late 4th century (according to Gibbon) and also by the "barbarians" - anyone from outside - trying to get in .... and then not being able to maintain control over so many diverse cultures in such a large area.

The demographic issue from Justin's link is an interesting and quite thorny one. From a European perspective we have low birth rates and a rapidly aging population and thus we will need major immigration in the near future. But we are not "melting pot" nations and thus immigration is major politcal death-trap.

The USA does have an advantage in that it has the space for immigrants and has a higher birth rate.

However it seems that the USA will change dramatically over the next 40 years due to these very demographic factors. Not all Americans will see this as a good thing..... when the majority becomes a minority there is high risk of polarisation and extremism within the population.

A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will make up only 47% of the population (85% in 1960).
It foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050.The proportion of Asian Americans would almost double by 2050. Overall, the population of the U.S. was due to rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million, with 82% of the increase due to immigrants.

Of the nation's children born in 2050, 62% are expected to have a minority ethnicity, up from 44% today. 39% are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22% in 2008), and 38% are to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56% in 2008).

Now these projections may turn out to be totally wrong, but it seems to me that one of the biggest challenges to the USA is the education and welfare of these children of minority parents if they are to provide a productive future for America. The

The US birth rate by ethnicity is also interesting...

(AmeriStat, January 2003)
In 2001 there were about 4 million births in the USA and a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman.
Minorities contributed 42 percent of all births, although they made up only 31 percent of the population.
In 2001, non-Hispanic whites had an average of 1.9 births per woman, compared with 2.0 births among Asian Americans, 2.1 births among American Indians, 2.2 births among non-Hispanic blacks, and 3.2 births among Hispanics.

This shows that it is not just more immigrants having more children, but also that white Americans are not replacing themselves (as with white Europeans).

This is not supposed to make any point about race. The USA gains its strength in my eyes from its diversity. It is more to illustrate the work that needs to be done to help these children develop into useful Americans to keep things moving for the ever-more youthful senior citizens.

Hopefully Obama will have the vision to invest heavily in the future of the next few generations of Americans.

Complain about this comment
20. At 11:04pm on 08 Jan 2009, DominickVila wrote:
No nation has maintained global dominance forever and we will not be the exception. In most cases, the decline of past empires were caused by implosion driven by corruption, depravity, greed, fanatism, irresponsibility, and the abandonment of the values and attributes that made those nations great in the first place.

Neither China nor India will replace the USA as the dominant world power in the near future, but it is evident that our refusal to pay for the things we need and want, our tendency to deny weaknesses in critical areas such as healthcare and education, the way we neglect science and the environment, religious and cultural intolerance, and our dependence on military might to survive augurs the same fate as the Roman Empire, no matter how many legions we arm and deploy.

The question is, how will we go down when our time comes? Will we cede our super-power position peacefully and gracefully or will we resort to unrestrained military power to delay the inevitable?

Complain about this comment
21. At 11:13pm on 08 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"It wouldn't hurt us to cut the Democracy spreading crap out for a while as well."

Why? What's wrong with a spreading the concept of universal self-determination? I agree it's highly improbable that we'll achieve it, but what's the harm in trying?

Complain about this comment
22. At 11:24pm on 08 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
#15 BloomsburyPirate wrote:
"I am extremely worried about a population which is ageing and not being replaced by an equal number of younger people.
I seem to remember reading that 40% of households in Britain are now single people, I am quite sure gay life has taken off and acceptance has made it more widespread (although perhaps just more open), than 20 years ago.
Life in a hetero couple is just so expensive now (without the addition of babies) that both partners need to work as hard as they can, and I still can't see this as fair on the kids."

_______________________________

I agree that the population bomb is a serious problem that is not being addressed in any significant way in Europe ..... but please - gay life cannot be creating the 40% of single occupancy households (after all we have gay marriage now - many live openly as couples, shock, horror!!!)

More sympomatic is the rise of seperation and divorce; late marriage among young, university-educated people with the cash to not need a flat-mate (this may change rapidly with the current economic situation!) and aging widows and widowers who live alone.

I also find life expensive, and I have 2 kids who won't stop eating, but if it gets too expensive you can always move out of Bloomsbury to a cheaper part of London!

I hope children don?t become an endangered species _ after all they?re so much fun; even if they sometimes belong in a zoo:

Complain about this comment
23. At 11:26pm on 08 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Re 20

A nation based on territorial expansion and exploitation of conquered peoples will fail eventually. That much we know for sure from history. There's something about having a large empire that makes orderly contraction impossible.

We don't know about the U.S. model. This is the first time this model has been used in world history. One thing is clear, while we have shown an ability to expand our trade far more efficiently that any country, we can also contract within our borders without any worry of causing civil discord within our governmental system. We're also self-sufficient when it comes to things like arable land (food) and natural resources (natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.). We've never needed to expand to acquire these things, so we have no need to maintain an expanded territory in bad times. Simply put, we can downsize when we need to.

That's a huge difference between us and the superpowers that have come before.

Complain about this comment
24. At 11:32pm on 08 Jan 2009, Schwerpunkt wrote:
20. DominickVila wrote:

"...our refusal to pay for the things we need and want, our tendency to deny weaknesses in critical areas such as healthcare and education, the way we neglect science and the environment, religious and cultural intolerance, and our dependence on military might to survive augurs the same fate as the Roman Empire, no matter how many legions we arm and deploy. "

I would actually argue that the most striking warning to be heeded for ourselves from the Roman Empire is that the Empire fell once Rome became unable to control its own borders. It was not marauding armies that destroyed the Empire but 'folk migrations'. The same holds true for the Hittite Empire. Turning a blind eye to the movement of large numbers of people across our borders, who do not share our culture, seeking to better their lot will not do us any favors.

Sorry for straying into ancient history; a weakness of mine :-D

Complain about this comment
25. At 11:37pm on 08 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#20. DominickVila: "In most cases, the decline of past empires were caused by implosion driven by corruption, depravity, greed, fanatism, irresponsibility, and the abandonment of the values and attributes that made those nations great in the first place."

Sounds pretty much like the path that America is on right now. Enron, Madoff, Blagojevich, Wright, et al, etc.

Complain about this comment
26. At 11:58pm on 08 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"However, it's influence on world affairs is on the wane. We can see how little influence the US has on it's 'own back-yard' - South America."

South America has never been America's "back yard". Central America, certainly, but not South America. When we've meddled there, our record of getting what we want is and always has been spotty at best.

For example, one of Chavez's biggest problems is getting the U.S. to pay attention to him. He hates us, calls us all sorts of nasty names, hosts the Russian navy, has lunch with Castro, and yet, we really don't care.

Also, we have recently chosen to ignore that continent and its issues (and I think they resent it), but there's no other foreign power pushing us out.

Complain about this comment
27. At 00:12am on 09 Jan 2009, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 24

"Turning a blind eye to the movement of large numbers of people across our borders, who do not share our culture, seeking to better their lot will not do us any favors."

I don't think we are turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. We allow it because it satisfies the demand for unskilled labor at a time when our population is becoming more educated and unwilling to work in sectors such as agriculture, meat packing, and other trades. Obviously, our corporations also benefit from cheap labor who often work for below minimum wage and without a benefit package.

Most importantly, our rise to superpower status was influenced to a large degree by our diversity, the influx of people with different ethnicities, cultures, traditions, values and aspirations. In my opinion, immigration may prolong our dominant role in the world rather than influence our demise.

Complain about this comment
28. At 00:21am on 09 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
""In most cases, the decline of past empires were caused by implosion driven by corruption, depravity, greed, fanatism, irresponsibility, and the abandonment of the values and attributes that made those nations great in the first place."

What about the British empire? I would say that was caused by history's most devastating one-two punch: World Wars I & II. The economic and societal damage done by those wars (which were not of their own making) made maintaining the empire impossible.

I don't know of any pervasive fanaticism, corruption or depravity in the case of the the British empire. Greed, maybe. Abandonment of values? Not really.

Also, it seems to me the French empire grew out of the ashes of what you presume killed it off.

Complain about this comment
29. At 00:28am on 09 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
:Sounds pretty much like the path that America is on right now. Enron, Madoff, Blagojevich, Wright, et al, etc."

Wright was actually making a case similar to yours, i.e., America deserves damnation because it's corrupt, immoral, etc.

Corruption is bad, no doubt, but it's unchecked corruption that's debilitating. When all is said and done, there will be plenty of jail time associated with your other examples.

Complain about this comment
30. At 00:33am on 09 Jan 2009, Simon21 wrote:
Yes yes yes. The point about demography (in the penultimate paragraph) is particularly telling and often overlooked."

The reason this is overlooked Justin is because it is balderdash.

Demographics is a very complex study and societies can change very quickly.

All Europe would have to do for example is let in more immigrants if it swiftly wants to expand its population.

The problem as regards the US is that the old Wasp elite whihc has largely ruled the country without challenge since inception is suffering demographically as much as White Europe.

So while the US population might be growing it is not growing among the white, protestant anglos who have (with very rare exceptions) always held power.

The US is in fact becoming a latin/catholic country, which of course, given its location, it should always have been.

No problem with this save ity is not going to be the same country it was for the first 200 years of its history.

Consequently glib asseertions about the US population are not helpful in guaging the country's development.

Complain about this comment
31. At 00:35am on 09 Jan 2009, Simon21 wrote:
21. At 11:13pm on 08 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"It wouldn't hurt us to cut the Democracy spreading crap out for a while as well."

Why? What's wrong with a spreading the concept of universal self-determination? I agree it's highly improbable that we'll achieve it, but what's the harm in trying?

None except, as the Palestinians have found, trying to spread something in which you yourself do not actually beleive is at best hypocritical and at worst a disaster.

Complain about this comment
32. At 00:39am on 09 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Re: #17

"...the poor performance of the American economic, technology and energy sectors"

What poor performance would that be? We lead in all three by a country mile. Exxon Mobile is thinking about buying Shell Oil outright from what I hear. The Dutch will probably stop any such attempt, but it the fact that they can even consider it makes me think they're doing fairly well, no?

Our economy has contracted recently, but not to the point where it's been overtaken by any other. China, for instance, is heavily invested in USA, inc. There's a reason for that.

As far as technology, we still kick ass. [Fair disclosure: I'm part of it that sector and very biased. ; ) ]

Manufacturing, on the other hand, is a different story. I'm with you there.

Complain about this comment
33. At 01:06am on 09 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#15. BloomsburyPirate: "I seem to remember reading that 40% of households in Britain are now single people, I am quite sure gay life has taken off and acceptance has made it more widespread."

The implication of that statement is that 40% of British households comprise of single gay persons. I haven't seen the source of that figure, but my guess would be that it means that 40% of households are those of cohabiting, single (not yet married) people. In fact, the birth rate in the UK has risen 16% over the last eight years, as this article reports. I don't think the acceptance of gay couples and Civil Partnerships has had any deleterious effect on the breeding habits of the heterosexual population.

Complain about this comment
34. At 01:24am on 09 Jan 2009, OldSouth wrote:
Dear Mr. Webb: Thanks for sharing this article, overall fair and realistically optimistic. In a profession where it is fashionable to bash everything American, your approach is refreshing.

What will determine much of our future will be our willingness to remember who we are as a free people under the Constitution. Mr. Obama's disdain for its limitations upon governmental power will test us all. Today He gave His 'Big Speech', promising to simultaneously expand and contract Washington's intrusion into the economy and culture.

He can't have it both ways, and that reality will set in, probably sooner rather than later.

I remain an optimist about America, because of our dynamism and culture of opportunity.

But on the short term, strap on your helmets, friends. It's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Thanks again for the good words about us.

Complain about this comment
35. At 01:52am on 09 Jan 2009, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 28

"I don't know of any pervasive fanaticism, corruption or depravity in the case of the the British empire. Greed, maybe. Abandonment of values? Not really."

Obviously, the opinion I expressed earlier does not apply to every empire. I agree most of the reasons I cited do not apply to the British Empire.

In my haste I neglected to mention one of the most important reasons for the eventual decline of several past empires: over-reaching.

Attempts by relatively small nations to conquer, invade, and control large territories with populations that often surpassed the empire's doomed their ability to remain in power indefinitely. Their difficulties were exacerbated by the conquerors decision to impose their values and traditions on people whose history and convictions were inconsistent with those that were being forced on them.

Judging by current events history is repeating itself...

Complain about this comment
36. At 02:16am on 09 Jan 2009, worldfamily wrote:
24. Schwerpunkt argues that
the Roman Empire fell once it became unable to control its own borders.

According to Arnold Toynbee's stellar work on civilization "A Study of History" the need to create barriers at the borders to 'keep the barbarians out' is a symptom of a dying civilization. A vibrant, growing civilization has much give and take and movement of people across borders.

Thus, according to Toynbee, by the time it changed from a republic to an empire, Rome was already a dying civilization.

Complain about this comment
37. At 02:31am on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
20 DominickVila
Well-written! And very honest. I under-estimated you. As you said: "In most cases, the decline of past empires were caused by implosion driven by corruption, depravity, greed, fanatism, irresponsibility, and the abandonment of the values and attributes that made those nations great in the first place." You might also have added the decline in discipline and, as in Rome's case, the diluting of Roman pride and commitment though conscription of too many foreigners.
Of all these things the abandoning of "the values and attributes" will probably prove the most telling factor, but that aside, it's all happening in the U.S. right now. Washington could be Rome itself with corruption, intrigue, intolerance - talk about "fanaticism and irresponsibility"!
Abe Lincoln stated the believe that the only way America would fall was through failure from within, and from an observers perspective, that is what is happening. Add to things mentioned by Dominick, the harsh reality that for too long North America has lived on credit. Looking at Obama's
'stimulus package' says it all, America is going to go even deeper into debt - without a means to pay creditors the massive national debt. Think about it, from where is the money going to come? The auto industry is failing and so many other industries have been sold off to foreigners.
What really troubles me is the possibility of a collapse happening with astounding suddenness, just like the recent financial failure occurred. All very troubling.

I was interested to see how many posters mentioned the falling birth rate and aging population, and because of this their view that the U.S. needs immigrants who, meanwhile, in regard to reproduction are out-producing Americans and are going to alter the demographics.
The solution to your falling birth-rate and 'aging population' is to stop killing unborn babies in abortion clinics. In Canada I listened to the same insane discussion about the need for immigration, and got a frosty reception when pointing out that Canada had killed off more than 3 million young Canadians since legalizing abortion. The U.S. has killed about 50 million unborn (sometimes born) babies. Deal with that and you won't have a birth-rate problem.

Complain about this comment
38. At 02:38am on 09 Jan 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
The good news for America's economy is that unlike the stock market crash that started in 1929 where the assets which fueled a bubble market were worthless scraps of paper, the assets in this case are real houses which a population that is growing by immigration will eventually want to buy and use. Once those homes are occupied and the currency is devalued by printing oceans of money to pay down old debt, the good times will roll again in the USA. We are in the deflationary period now with cash and assets convertable into cash shrinking making our dollars more valuable. When it comes time for the goverment to pay the piper for all the spending it can't cover with tax increases, look out below, the green ink will flow like a river down at the US mint. Money will be easy to come by in the US even if it can't buy much in the way of imports until foreign countries do the same or their economies collapse. When that happens, a cup of coffee at Starbucks will cost $20.

Complain about this comment
39. At 03:16am on 09 Jan 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
AndyPost #21: "Why? What's wrong with a spreading the concept of universal self determination? I agree it's highly improbable that we'll achieve it, but what's the harm in trying?"

Two reasons. First, as I mentioned above, China is on the rise. China is a Comunist dictatorship which doesn't appear set to change its method of government any time soon. Do you really want the world's next super power and the world's last super power to be at logerheads over an issue that they just won't agree on if they don't need to be? Do you think all that sparing which will undoutidly spill over into other aspects of our relationship with China healthy for the peace and prosparity of not only our nations, but the wider world as well?

And second, no one I presume likes being told what to do. We can certainly encourage along side our other allies Democratic reforms, but there comes a point when we just have to accept the fact that in some cases people don't want to live in a Democracy, and that it is not our job to spread it abroad!!

Plus, the blatont hipocracy of Bush, going around the world saying he believes in the "universality of freedom" while simaltaniously doing his best to destroy the "freedoms" that the American people enjoyed before he took office had something to do with it. If Obama can practice what he preaches, then perhaps we can start talking about Democracy again. But I certainly don't want us to force ourselves on others like we did the past 8 years!!

Complain about this comment
40. At 03:55am on 09 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
"China is a Comunist dictatorship which doesn't appear set to change its method of government any time soon."

Agreed.

"Do you really want the world's next super power and the world's last super power to be at logerheads over an issue that they just won't agree on if they don't need to be?"

That's assuming that we'll have a relationship with them that is identical to the one we had with the Soviet Union. I think that is a misconception. The cultures are really quite different. The Chinese, for instance, have no history of interaction with other countries that aren't on their border. Their world has been Japan, Viet Nam, Laos, Tibet, India, Monogolia and Russia exclusively until 1830. They've never in their 5000 year history have shown the slightest inclination toward colonization nor empire building (once they established China proper). It would be a sea change for them to start now. Confucianism is still a major influence in China. Reason is valued.

"And second, no one I presume likes being told what to do'

Actually, we're telling _them_ to decide what to do, and we never promise that there won't be consequences for their choices.

"If Obama can practice what he preaches, then perhaps we can start talking about Democracy again."

Oh, no, you can talk about it now. November's election was a stellar example of the power of participatory democracy and its health in this country. We hired some questionable leadership, yes, but we just fired them. We have control.

"But I certainly don't want us to force ourselves on others like we did the past 8 years!! "

No, neither do I. It doesn't work. The flower of democracy does not bloom from the barrel of a gun.

But that's just one way of spreading democracy.

Complain about this comment
41. At 03:57am on 09 Jan 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#2

Sorry Happy,

We just get it on more than the average beer gutted Woking wannabe 'hard' man.

Yeah baby. Go Gators!

Sam Powers

Complain about this comment
42. At 04:03am on 09 Jan 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#5

David,

This may be true. If you track the pre eminent military and historically dominant groups over time you get an interesting trend.

There was chaos. Then there was Persia, then Greece. Then Rome. And Rome was sacked and reduced by the Goths.

And the Goths? Became the Vikings, the Normans, the Brits, the Yanks, Canucks, Cloggies, Boers and Aussies. The most warlike, angry, decadent and successful tribe the world has ever seen. They are us, we are they.

Hail the Mighty Goths. We dominated for almost 2,000 years, may we lead for 2,000 more.

Sam the Hairy

Complain about this comment
43. At 04:08am on 09 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Ref. 35

"Judging by current events history is repeating itself... "

I agree with what you said in the paragraph before this line (ahem, the penultimate paragraph), but I don't see how this follows. We're not conquerors (I'm talkikng about the U.S. during its time as a superpower, i.e., after WWII), and whether you think we impose our values on people whose history are inconsistent with ours depends largely on what you consider generic imperial imposition. We do throw our weight around militarily. No question. We don't occupy indefinitely. We don't set up their governments exclusively to serve our financial needs. We want trading partners, not subjects.

Complain about this comment
44. At 04:08am on 09 Jan 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
Very fine article. I have been wondering lately that if every country is bankrupt, does that make for an even playing field, with no disruption of the pecking order. And is bankcruptcy the new norm? I am not sure where that thinking will take me. It is like trying to envision eternity.

Complain about this comment
45. At 04:14am on 09 Jan 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#38

Marcus,

You do, as usual, miss the true issue. Because thousands and millions of people bought houses, many as an 'investment' using a loan that they defaulted on and which ultimately ended up as a liability on someone elses balance sheet, there is no money to use. What there was, in banks, now has to cover those asset losses. So no new credit.

A monetary stimulus, such as an enormous tax cut supported by creating $$$ in the M0 to M3 money supply, would give us hyper inflation and a $20 latte (Skinny with some cinnamon please). And probably an economic collapse. Thanks for the idea, but no thanks.

Fortunately PE Obama has a balanced monetary and fiscal stimulus package which will limit the inflationary effects of the necessary deficit spending, and keep us to a $7 latte as our Purchasing Parity Income increases, albeit slowly, for the foirst time in 8 years.

It will be hard, at least for the next 18 months. And we have to make sure the least fortunate have the smallest burden. They, after all, spend the highest proportion of their income and as such are the folks we need to help.

We go on.

Economist Sam

Complain about this comment
46. At 04:15am on 09 Jan 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
9, stumo.
"I suspect a big factor is that the US has space for more people; the UK doesn't really. (Certainly not of the same order)"

Twenty or so years ago I was sitting with an English friend and we determined that if America was as densely populated at the UK, it would contain the entire world's population. The numbers have probably changed somewhat since then, but you get the idea.

Complain about this comment
47. At 04:21am on 09 Jan 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Ref. 31

"None except, as the Palestinians have found, trying to spread something in which you yourself do not actually beleive is at best hypocritical and at worst a disaster."

We never promise that the decisions made by a free people, won't have their consequences. I think Gazans made a foolish choice in selecting Hamas. And they did have a choice. They knowingly chose militancy. Now they're experiencing casualties 70 times what they were able to inflict. It was a dreadful strategic choice. It led to their massacre.

I'm not saying anything about right and wrong. I want the Israelis to stop now. This is obscene.

Complain about this comment
48. At 04:25am on 09 Jan 2009, BraunSA wrote:
Good Article Justin! I too am optimistic of the future of this Great Country! I am concerned though as the power of Washington grows, the ones who disagree, even though diversity is encouraged, will face government agencies ensuring that dissention is minimal and only tolerate enough to look the part of the tolerance they preach. You know what they say about "absolute power"...

Complain about this comment
49. At 04:27am on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
39 NoRashDecisions
I can't pretend that I'm impressed by your lack of commitment to liberty and decency, and easy acceptence of expediency. If on the basis of principle, the old super power finds itself a loggerheads with the new, so what! Is the old super power, for the sake of peace and cosy relations, to pretend that all is well regardless of how repressively China conducts itself both internally and in captive Tibet where it is responsible for the deaths of well more than a million people?
Unless it experiences an ideological and political transformation, China will remain a cruel, repressive, totalitarian, Communist Party dictatorship that crushes freedom and barbarically kills prisoners in order to harvest their organs for transplants. The U.S. is right to express it's opposition to such conduct and, hopefully, regardless of its fortunes, it will continue to have the decency and courage to speak out against repression.
I agree that you can't force democracy on another nation, but to say that Bush has
'destroyed freedom' is patently absurd. If he had "destroyed the "freedoms "that the American people enjoyed before he took office" (ignoring here 9/11 and subsequent security measures), you would not be writing so freely your hostile remarks about him. You would have your phone tapped, mail opened, and be apprehensive about a knock on your front door. When even democracies are at war, in some areas they restrict certain freedoms in order to thwart the actions of enemies who are out to kill you, and whether you like it or not, that is what Bush has tried to do.
And who did the U.S. force itself on over "the past 8 years"? Afghanistan, Iraq, against whom the U.S. went to war, in the case of Afghanistan for good reason.
Am I to understand that you are able to see everyone else's point of view, including that of the U.S.'s enemies, among these Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but not that of your own country?

Complain about this comment
50. At 04:34am on 09 Jan 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
A subject dear to my heart! Justin, you are
such an optimist!

But first, a quote, the origins of which are unknown:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."

This quote has been floating around the net
for years, but its attribution is in dispute,
as this link explains.

Nonetheless, I am impressed by the wisdom
exposed here. The Bush administration
presided over our transition from abundance
to selfishness. Obama proposes to skip apathy
and go directly to dependence.

"Yes, we can!" Yes, we can what?

Complain about this comment
51. At 04:34am on 09 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#30. Simon21: "The US is in fact becoming a latin/catholic country, which of course, given its location, it should always have been." (My italics.)

Just how do you come to that conclusion? There are two oceans between North America and Italy, hardly the obvious route for a religious belief to travel. Although Columbus was presumably Catholic, it was Protestants who landed at Plymouth Rock, Protestants who were directly opposed to Popery and Catholicism.

That the US is (regrettably) becoming allied with the Catholic Church is another matter, bringing as it does her views on contraception, abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, individual sexuality, the supremacy of males in the church and so many more opinions which do not jibe with contemporary science - medical or social. However, as the Latino population continues to blend in with the established citizenry, with any luck they will realise that the Church is wrong. Eventually birth control will become the norm, as I suspect is already the case amongst relative newcomers, and the birthrate amongst Latinas will diminish. As the population increases, there will be a commensurate increase in the number of educated and public-spirited individuals of Latin extraction - government does not have to be exclusively white, as the recent presidential election has shown so well.

I would not think that there will be any noticeable change before half-a-century passes; I shall not be here to witness it, but NRD should be, providing he lives to expectancy. The US is not like the UK where change has come suddenly to a nation which is geographically ill-equipped to absorb so many more. At least the US has "land, lots of land, with starry skies above." There is hope yet - but India and China may well out-breed us.

Complain about this comment
52. At 04:34am on 09 Jan 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
#46, Ms. Marbles, that might happen if someone
can get Sam a big enough bed.

Complain about this comment
53. At 04:46am on 09 Jan 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
52, guns.

You must know something about Sam that I don't.

Complain about this comment
54. At 04:49am on 09 Jan 2009, BraunSA wrote:
RE: 51
Protestant, Catholic, whatever. This is America! The challenge is the "value of human life". The Religious Organizations, of whatever flavor, are forced to carry this torch! Even Race will bow to the division in this country, and the modern world, of the authority of someone to be able to take your life, prior to birth, during your old age, or your incapacitation inbetween. Are you ready for someone else to make that call for you? That is the precipice on which this country finds itself balanced on. And all the other moral factors that go with those viewpoints of "You really do matter", or "get lost"...

Complain about this comment
55. At 05:03am on 09 Jan 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#52

Yeah Baby!

Tired Sam

Complain about this comment
56. At 05:11am on 09 Jan 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
51, David.

I agree with you that America is not becoming a Latin Catholic country. No matter who arrives on our shores, they all wind up with a protestant mentality. That is the dominant culture and it has noting to do with numbers or origins.

We are all a product of our environment. Take the Jews for instance. American Jews embrace the protestant ethic with all of its absolutes . British Jews keep a stiff upper lip. Iranian Jews are sweet, etc., etc. And American blacks can pretend all they like that they are African. I have travelled with them to Africa and, believe me - they are American. Culture, not religion (or race) supercedes everything.

Complain about this comment
57. At 05:41am on 09 Jan 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
Ms. Marbles, now you have gotten me to think
about our culture. By a "protestant mentality,"
I suppose you mean this, as opposed to this.

Complain about this comment
58. At 06:10am on 09 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#54. BraunSA: "Protestant, Catholic, whatever. This is America"

You appear not to understand the vast chasm between the views of the Catholic Church, other mainstream religions and those who have alternate or no religious beliefs at all. Does America want to be a nation which forbids so much? I for one do not consider that human life begins at conception and that every aborted zygote is precious. Others of course disagree, but they should not be able to dictate their belief to the rest of America. Similarly with euthanasia - the time for acceptance of which is long overdue. If you have read this blog during the last few weeks you will know that I have cancer; if it should ever become intolerable, then I think I should have the choice over the timing of my departure from this world. My mother had Alzheimer's and I would have gladly given permission to a doctor to release her from the dreadful existence she had in the last years of her life. If "God" was truly merciful, she would not have been in that condition, one for which there is no known cure and which all to often results in what the British call "chemical coshing" - virtually constant sedation. Which is the more moral - a life without any quality or a peaceful release from it?

"Are you ready for someone else to make that call for you? That is the precipice on which this country finds itself balanced on."

Under the right circumstances, of course it's permissible for someone else to make the call. Like many others of all ages, I have a Medical Directive, which permits a designated party to act in my best interest when I cannot. Failing the presence of that person, my doctor has the task of determining it, even if it includes death. However, if you mean that the State will somehow be the determinant of my life, that is a different question altogether. I cannot foresee that the United States is systematically going to kill-off the poor and the elderly or to order late-term abortions for the indigent and/or mentally incapacitated. I don't see that America is balanced on any precipice, one does not have to be religious to follow a moral code - in fact I've always thought that Judaism, basically a philosophy, is probably the best moral system yet devised. I would have a problem with some of the books of the Torah - there being prohibitions which are inconsistent with modern life - but to generalise, there's some pretty good advice to be found. Most Americans have a grasp of what is right and wrong and I don't foresee the nation tipping over into the abyss.

Complain about this comment
59. At 07:31am on 09 Jan 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
57, guns.

These videos have nothing to do with what I said, but who cares. You have made my day. I will pass them on to my children who first introduced me to Monty Python years and years ago. Thanks. Really wonderful.

Complain about this comment
60. At 08:44am on 09 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
"No, no, no . . ."?

Americans really are untiring in their endless pursuit of optimism, forever seeing a golden lining in every storm cloud, aren't they?

I don't think I am that distant from NoRashDecisions, except that I'm not in my twenties; the idea that any American President can somehow transform a country's entire ethos, foreign affairs philsophy and economy and bring the USA glowing into the sunlit uplands of an entire new world in four years risible.

That's not optimism, it's wishful thinking, nostalgia for a United States that never existed except in the dreams of people like Thoraeau and projected into a Hollywood future with a happy ending hurriedly re-written to replace a tragic one.

The Capulets and Montagus are reconciled, they join together to bring moral government to the Dukedom of Milan, and Romeo and Juliet didn't die, just suffered from a tummy upset, recover, marry and live happily ever after. As re-written by the Christian Science Monitor with additional dialogue by Furokawa and John Bolton.

Where I might differ from NRD (glad you stayed, we need people like you!) is that other peoples might not want democracy however in some form it may be an aspiration, just not necessarily in a form imposed by one country created in its own likeness. There are plenty of historical lessons about that, after all.

And the idea that the USA will somehow overwhelm by sheer numbers . . .I've never read anything quite so ridiculous since the same breed of commentators were saying exactly the same thing about China . . .

Dear me, Justin, aren't there certain other things happening, events that are either being influenced (or not) by the USA that deserve investigation and comment by a North American editor? Do you have so little information or hints as to the near-term future of the USA under the administration that comes into power next week that you resort to this flummery?

Are you going to turn Today into a radio gossip column? Or a US Information Agency outpost?

I don't, quite honestly, know whether to laugh or cry. I think I shall just hoot with derision instead.

Complain about this comment
61. At 10:27am on 09 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
#15 BloomsburyPirate wrote:

"I am extremely worried about a population which is ageing and not being replaced by an equal number of younger people.

I seem to remember reading that 40% of households in Britain are now single people, I am quite sure gay life has taken off and acceptance has made it more widespread (although perhaps just more open), than 20 years ago."

What a splendid example of ageism and sexism. (The former, of course, also in that soon-to-be notorious penultimate paragraph.)

Does the USA particularly favour youth, when it seems a great many of their politicians all seem to be over retirement age?

Even those employed by the US government abroad can be old enough to be surprising to the ageing population of Europeans (I have been told of one who was nearly 90 and showed no signs of retiring, and not that much of life, either).

There seems to be an assumption that the populations of European countries will somehow all become physically decrepit and mentally incapable.

The problem in many countries with a low birthrate is not that. It is the cost of keeping increasing numbers happy on a retirement pension if there are fewer people under retirement age earning and paying taxes to fund them. Increasingly it is being mooted for example, not that young British couples should breed more (which will no doubt come as a relief to a number of contributors to this blog) but, likely to be still hale, hearty and in full possession of their faculties might carry on working until 70 or more.

As to 40 per cent of the population being single, I haven't looked at the last census results, but it may well be true. It doesn't mean that nearly half of the population is not in a relationship and having children.

As I have said before, fundamentally, Britain has been a secular non-religious society for at least the last 20 years and probably more. Marriage (and a long-term relationship to some extent) is viewed as an option, not as a requirement.

I can well see that that idea will shock some contributors, and be disputed by others, but it's the way society here (and in Holland) has developed and no amount of social engineering or incentives, or evangelical missions for that matter, are likely to change it.

Mind you, if the 40 per cent singles (including both sexes) are gay, or avoiding relationships of any sexual orientation, that explains a lot about my own recent period of celibacy.

Maybe I needn't have kept changing my brands of deodorant and after-shave and wondering if I should have my hair cut Webb-fashion. It wasn't me after all . . .Are the opportunities really better in the US? (I know one 25-year old Brit in San Francisco who is a bit sceptical about that at the moment.)

Complain about this comment
62. At 11:01am on 09 Jan 2009, zugental wrote:
Quite like gunsandreligion post on 50.

To expand,
The US is certainly in selfishness. George Bush moved them on from abundance.
• Russia is the best example of a country that has gone full circle over a short period of time. From the bondage of Communism, it got liberty, then apathy, then dependence. And now, it is tending back to bondage.
• China is still in bondage; and is fighting hard to move from bondage straight to abundance. But can it skip spiritual faith and liberty? They are the main weapons against bondage.
• Europe is in apathy, but tilting dangerously to dependence (on the US for power, Russia for energy, China for manufacturing)
• India is in liberty
• Latin America is in courage; they had the Catholic thingy, then the liberation theologies, and Pentecostalism. Now they are exercising their courage with the proliferation of leftist ideologies.
• African dictatorships are in bondage – guess that’s fairly obvious
• The rest of Africa are in spiritual faith – God will solve all problems and the devil is to be blamed for every evil.

Complain about this comment
63. At 12:02pm on 09 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
62. zugental wrote:

No, oh dear me, no: you can't pick and choose a historical point from which to start just to fit a thesis.

"Russia is the best example of a country that has gone full circle over a short period of time. From the bondage of Communism, it got liberty, then apathy, then dependence."

Let us start with the Tsars (and literal serfdom and bondsmen) in which case it was the Revolution of 1917 that represents the 'liberty' phase.

Or alter geography, or political geography, for the same purpose.

"Europe is in apathy, but tilting dangerously to dependence (on the US for power, Russia for energy, China for manufacturing)"

Russia, for instance, is largely a part of Europe. And isn't the USA largely dependent on China and Japan for a lot of consumer goods?

I'm sure there are plenty of other 'historical' cycles that would 'prove' utterly different things. What about the one that includes the 'dictatorship of the proletariat"? I'd argue that the problem with Communism in Russia is that it never got out of that stage. Not that Russia got through the whole cycle in about 50 years . . .

If you want to argue from that, couldn't Russia now merely be in the 'spiritual' phase? Like the USA? There's quite a lot of religion about in both at the moment.

So maybe the USA still has 'courage' and 'liberty' to come after the 'bondage' of being tied to a 250 year old written constitution?

And if you start counting from the Declaration of Independence, the USA's time is well up now anyway, isn't it?

Should we really rely in any case on the profundity of something that was in all probability dreamt up by one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters half-remembering another two from 20 years before?

One that seems to have actually been invented to give an 18th century legitimacy to a 20th century political dogma. (It's a trick used a lot around here, too, I've noticed.)

And that is all it is when you really look into it. Sorry, gunsandreligion.

Complain about this comment
64. At 12:18pm on 09 Jan 2009, zugental wrote:
63. Take it easy on me. Am no expert in historical perspectives. I was just having a laugh based on what I have seen in the news in my short life.

I can also add that:

The Middle East & North Africa are in bondage masquerading as spiritual faith.

Complain about this comment
65. At 12:29pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
50 Gunsandreligion wrote
"The Bush administration presided over our transition from abundance to selfishness. Obama proposes to skip apathy and go directly to dependence. "

______________________________

Actually the Bush administration started on the road to dependency with massive handouts of banks and auto manufacturers.

Maybe Obama will be able to break the cycle from your quote. The progression is not set in stone.

Or will Obama's dependency lead back into bondage when Sarah Palin gets elected in 2012 and the USA gradually becomes a theocracy? Hmmmm.

Complain about this comment
66. At 12:33pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
64 zugental wrote:
"The Middle East & North Africa are in bondage masquerading as spiritual faith."

______________________________-

I agree absolutely ... but you can also say this about a large number of Americans in thrall to fundamentalist Christian preachers. Any cap on freedom of thought is a type of bondage too.

Complain about this comment
67. At 12:51pm on 09 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
64. zugental wrote:

"I can also add that:

The Middle East & North Africa are in bondage masquerading as spiritual faith."

The Squirrel Party would like to point out that one of the reasons it is in hiding at the moment is that when people use phrases like that, they all too often soon start talking of "freeing" those "in bondage to a faith".

Which all too often ends up in them being bound to the earth in a very literal way in very large numbers, as they can see perfectly clearly at this very moment.

It makes them even more nervous and twitchy around humans than they are temperamentally to begin with, they say. I for one don't blame them.

Complain about this comment
68. At 1:36pm on 09 Jan 2009, R-Snail wrote:
50 GNR

Great post.

As America never does anything without going to excess, I believe that we had extreme abundance, and became very selfish, and were so good at it that we then said:
We can't be bothered with apathy!

Thus it was a very short phase as we looked forward to Change we could Believe In... the change to dependence.

I'm so glad Obama got elected. Now I don't have to worry about making my mortgage payment, paying for gas (petrol), or paying my bills.

Complain about this comment
69. At 1:59pm on 09 Jan 2009, Iapetus wrote:
Re #21:

I agree.

It seems to me that a lot of the instability around the world, and resentment of America, stems from the US propping up various unpleasent and undemocratic regimes, as part of its strategy for countering the USSR.

Now, this isn't meant to be an anti-American rant. I think some of those actions were probably necessary (just as it was previously necessary to support the USSR in order to defeat the Nazis).

However, as the West no longer faces an enemy as dangerous as the Nazis or the USSR, IMO there is no justification for a "support anyone as long as they oppose our enemies" policy.

On the contrary, encouraging the spread of democratic ideals will be be best for the both the US and the world in general (not to mention the people currently living under undemocractic regimes).

Just because the Bush administration has gone about this badly (doing it by force, while also supporting some quite unpleasent central-Asian regimes) doesn't mean the principle itself is bad.

Complain about this comment
70. At 2:37pm on 09 Jan 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
#63, that's easy for you to say, british-ish.

We just had Forrest Gump in office for 8 years,
and now Mr. Lenin masquerading as FDR has
assumed the office.

I don't think that we are going to be able
to turn things around until Chauncey Gardener
shows up.

Complain about this comment
71. At 2:46pm on 09 Jan 2009, watermanaquarius wrote:
David # 58,
Always pleased to read your longer postings on every thread, despite your occasional departures into schoolmaster mode
Occasionally you let small personal snippets of family information out, that mirrors my own path on this planet to a T..
Could not agree more with your remarks concerning the "new" Catholic re-evaluations in the predominantly Catholic country where I now choose to reside, individuals rights to a free choice, especially the dignified departure, Alzheimer's sufferers prolonged containment, through to your ending.. It is a small world indeed.
As you suggest, America should not, and shall not tip over into the abyss. With the risk of irritating some, I do believe your future leader is coming down from the mountain where previous Presidents have resided, carrying the correct medicine. Dispensing 21st century tablets or enemas, not just the USA, but the whole world will be stimulated to get up and run.

british-ish # 60 , 61, 67
You too. Always there with the thoughtful humouristic remark to balance our depressions or temporary euphoria.
At least being front-man for the Squirrel Party, unlike some, you do have a recognised right to be hibernating yourself away from the world at this time. But may I ask, request, nay beg, that despite the bodily clock that governs a respite until the spring you do not hide your bushy tail away the whole winter.
I know your excellent breeding would never allow you to aquire Conker attributes on these pages, but imitating behind the scenes deliberations as shown by Bush? Rice, Blair, et al, would mean an absence of valuable information from you..
Please keep throwing your nuts our way, the more the merrier.

Complain about this comment
72. At 2:57pm on 09 Jan 2009, Schwerpunkt wrote:
36. worldfamily wrote:

"According to Arnold Toynbee's stellar work on civilization "A Study of History" the need to create barriers at the borders to 'keep the barbarians out' is a symptom of a dying civilization. A vibrant, growing civilization has much give and take and movement of people across borders."

Except I cannot think of any civilization which has persisted without being able to regulate the influx of alien cultures. Failure to be able to control the rate at which members of the alien culture arrive so that they can be assimilated will just as surely see the destruction of the civilization as if it atrophy, which seems to be Toynbee's view of how civilizations peter out.

Complain about this comment
73. At 2:59pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
Iapetus at #69 makes a good argument.

The spread of democracy is the only way counter tyranny and despotism.
However new ideas are hard to disseminate in countries that are not free. The last 8 years have shown that new ideas are even harder to spread with guns.

Alot of damage has been done to the ideas of democracy by the Bush administration, but it is worth persevering.

Having said that, here are some quotes from Winston Churchill that always make me smile...

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

And finally, my history teacher used to say that the best form of government would be a benign dictatorship .... if only we could find a benign dictator.

Complain about this comment
74. At 3:19pm on 09 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
Following on what other posters have said, another reason why American influence is on the wane - hypocrisy.

Medic Mohammed Azayzeh said he retrieved the bodies of a man and his two young sons from central Gaza on Wednesday. One of the boys, a 1-year-old, was cradled in his father's arms.

There's also another 255 other children killed with the tacit support of the USA. I suppose the values of the American Constitution does not include people who are different or foreign.

Complain about this comment
75. At 3:22pm on 09 Jan 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
AndyPost #40: "They've (China) never in their 5000 year history have shown the
slightest inclination toward colonization nor empire building (once they established China proper)."

I know...I wasn't saying that that is what we should fear!! They are, however, involving themselves in countries in Latin America and Africa in particular, helping them toward greater prosparity and success, but encouraging a Communist/Capitalistic-type society as aposed to a Democratic one. I'm merely saying that if we fight with them over our differences in Democratic beliefs, our relationship will sour as they get stronger and eventually take us over. Our bitter feelings over Democracy will spill over into our nigociations on trade, aid, global warming combattence etc, and it will undoutidly affect our relationships with the rest of the world, making it less peaceful.

"Actually, we're telling _them_ to decide what to do, and we never promise that there won't be consequences for their choices."

That's exactly what I don't like!! "Telling them to become Democracies" or "telling them to decide what form of government to become (but if they don't choose Democracy...)" Its all the same!! Our telling others to choose a Democratic form of government...or else is comparable to an occurance in dictatorships, whereby a balad is handed out during a mock election with the name of the dictator on it already checked off. Its at the highest level of disrespect!!

"Oh, no, you can talk about it now. November's election was a stellar example of the power of participatory democracy and its health in this country. We hired some questionable leadership, yes, but we just fired them. We have control."

Yes and it was wonderful, but braging too much about it can seem bosteful -- and I think there is no more an unatractive characteristic than bostefulness!! Also, 63% turn out, while good, wasn't what I had hoped for. African countries have close to 80% turn out, while older Democracies in Europe enjoy close to 70%.

Complain about this comment
76. At 3:24pm on 09 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
America's (and Israel's) future is a damn sight better than those 257 dead children.

Complain about this comment
77. At 3:57pm on 09 Jan 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
robloop #49: "I agree that you can't force democracy on another nation, but to say that Bush has 'destroyed freedom' is patently absurd. If he had "destroyed the "freedoms "that the American people enjoyed before he took office" (ignoring here 9/11 and subsequent security measures), you would not be writing so freely your hostile remarks about him. You would have your phone tapped, mail opened, and be apprehensive about a knock on your front door."

I'm well aware of that, thanks! And I wasn't claiming that Bush has "destroyed" the freedoms that the American people enjoyed before he took office!!!! Merely that he has made some considerable attempt at doing so!! The reasons for this are complicated no doubt, and I don't disagree with certainly a bit of temporary restriction on things like was done directly after the 9/11 ataks, but from Guantonimo Bey (which was set up via Executive order after congress said no,) to the hasty and careless rush to war in Iraq (where any descent whatsoever was met with howls of "unpatriotic!!" and thoughts of a descenter's disrespect for, and carelessness for their fighting forces,) to the pressuring of the CIA to give intellejence that fit the case for war in Iraq, to the Patriot act, Bush has I feel gone too far in his good intentions to protect the American people.

George Washington's fairwell address to the nation warned the nation against "entanggeling alliances," whereby we get involved either militarily or otherwise in another nation's afairs because we either feel we know what's best for them or feel that we can't live with them in their current form in this world. And it was Ben Franklen who said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

And I was saying exactly what you asked in the first part of your post, for reasons further explained in post #75.

Complain about this comment
78. At 3:58pm on 09 Jan 2009, rwbennett wrote:
Yes, for a bit more. However, the AVERAGE American today has about a 5th grade education, even if they stayed in school longer. What made America great was the Protestant, White culture America was founded to be. Illegal immigration and the high birth rate, paid for by the above trying to be fair, is killing the American Dream and turning the nation into a nightmare of differen't angry groups, none of whom even like each other. Then there is in the middle of this the Bush years, no one, not even Republicans liked and now Obama? Is Obama a saint, the Devil himself, a fraud, the greatest or just another Jimmy Carter? This is not the way to run a country, especially the socalled leader of the free world. America is full of surprises, so who knows what is to come. I believe our Constitution is all important, but many American and foreign traitors want to destroy it, time is short, but time will tell. God Bless America!

Complain about this comment
79. At 4:03pm on 09 Jan 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
British-ish #60 Slow down!! I wasn't saying that I don't think Obama can, and that I think its rediculous for him to even try to drasticly change our nation, merely that I hope he can because we need it and that time will tell! Relax!

Complain about this comment
80. At 4:19pm on 09 Jan 2009, AsaScot wrote:
One point about the life of empires the Roman empire lasted some 1500 years, from the accession of Augustus to the fall of Constantinople. It underwent substantial change in that time but still it kept going. Likewise China, indeed if you regard the communists as just another dynasty you can argue the Chinese empire is still in existence, so the 200 years figure mentioned in some of the earlier posts isn't any sort of magic number.

Complain about this comment
81. At 4:22pm on 09 Jan 2009, AsaScot wrote:
Oh forgot to mention the British Empire, in the aftermath of the War of Independence many assumed Britain was on its way to becoming a second rate power, not forseeing the coming Industrial Revolution...
Basically anyone making grand pronouncements about the rise of China and the decline of the USA is just playing guessing games.

Complain about this comment
82. At 4:27pm on 09 Jan 2009, watermanaquarius wrote:
vagueofgodalming # 6 wrote,
"The world needs below-replacement fertility for a while".
"I guess it's questionable, though, whether those countries that lead the way will be those that benefit most."
Now non-resident of one of those countries, all I can say is we keep hoping!
Minimal teenage pregnancies- do they or dont they know what they are doing if Justin's link is correct? Not negative but very low birth figures. Euthanasia- [following extensive strong guidelines] described by others as "bumping off" the oldies and handicapped. Extreme ecological taxes on fuel, engine-size and emissions. Solar and windpower- even Palin could see the wind-generators if she looked that way. Planting trees like Johnny Appleseed. Recycling everything possible. Going down the tubes with the rest of you with a tear in each eye.

Complain about this comment
83. At 5:25pm on 09 Jan 2009, TruthSlinger wrote:
I would agree with those here culture trumps whatever demographics trends are predicted for the future. Immigrant groups join with American culture rather easily despite what media reports suggest or special interest groups attempt. Besides with ever increasing rates of intermarriage you might seem demographic #s in 2050 that look like 60% - 70% mixed race.

On a semi-related topic the discussion here portends that increasing immigration from the rest of the Americans will fundamentally change the Anglo protestant culture of US are buying into a canard. Previous catholic immigrants adopted the anglo-protestant culture as do current immigrants. Besides poll after poll show that American catholics are highly independent of Rome in regards to birthcontrol, stem cell etc. Another interesting note that people should pay attention to is that increasingly the Latinos are becoming evangelical christians.

200 years after the founding of the Republic American Demography is drastically different but still American so it will remain despite what peoples faces look like.

Complain about this comment
84. At 5:45pm on 09 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
14 corinini

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120501208.html

well thank god GW is running the condom clinics then.

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubteenp.htm

http://contraception.about.com/b/2007/12/06/teen-pregnancy-rate-rises-for-first-time-in-14-years-who-is-to-blame.htm

it is on the increase and way higher than other developed nations .

so in comparing rates to other nations it MAy be a factor.

Mississippi up 14%.

whayeva

Complain about this comment
85. At 5:51pm on 09 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
25 DC what did wright do again?
to be included in that list.

really I thought you had got over the revs words. Quotes but no still that festering thought "did HE say chickens or was it that state dept official he was quoting".

Complain about this comment
86. At 5:56pm on 09 Jan 2009, Jeebers76 wrote:
I'm not sure whether I should laugh or remain cynical about politics...

Is it possible that the globe's countries have made a leap of intelligence? Bear with me, I'll explain.

To function happily, everybody needs a leader that is both relatively nice and politically neutral (no favorites, really). That leader needs to have the dough/resources and a willingness to redistribute it. If a leader gets too big for his britches, he has to be willing to listen to complaints and do something more positive than thumbing his nose at those weaker than him. You want prosperity? OK, you gotta have reasonable (RELATIVELY) cops to maintain the peace so you can get on with trade. And you can't have these cops getting on a power kick and nosing into everything, instead they need to snoop into just the stuff that will upset the apple cart for everyone else.(weapons etc)

Is it possible that the world's major powers have gotten past their egos to figure this principle out? You all know as well as I do that there's an inherent desire to be the big dog on the block in most political leaders. Bear in mind I'm not enthusiastic about ANYONE being the alpha, but if somebody's gotta do it...

Remember, the USA isn't Rome. Usually we WELCOME immigrants. Moreover, we don't even remotely believe ourselves superior to the rest of the world's countries, despite what our media would have you believe. Too many of us have either grown up with one foot in the poor house, or our parents have. A nation of immigrants, it's a concept that's never been tried before. It tends to leave its' mark on our psyche.

When everybody's ancestors began with virtually nothing and had to learn to get along with the only other guy despite differences in religion, country, language, race, what have you, we learn not to value such things. All most of us care about is "Are you friendly?" and "Can I trust you?"

We don't have the deeply ingrained cultural outlook that the rest of the world seems to have. Thus, our national mind can be changed based on recent experience. In fact, as a nation the USA is dedicated to constant adaptation and growth(remember all those CHANGE speeches Obama gave?).

Is the USA worthy of this potential status of "we decided you have to be our global leader"? I have no idea. But oddly, if this article is to be believed, the rest of the national powers have deemed it to be so. Do they mean it? I have no clue, but they have been acting like they do.

Just me riffing on an idea....

Complain about this comment
87. At 5:59pm on 09 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
41 no you guys just can't figure out CONDOMS.
though the brit youth tries it's best to catch up.

Complain about this comment
88. At 6:05pm on 09 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#71. watermanaquarius: "Always pleased to read your longer postings on every thread, despite your occasional departures into schoolmaster mode"

It's not intentional - it's like my late mother's cooking, "plain English". Not terribly exciting, but sufficient to the need.

"Occasionally you let small personal snippets of family information out, that mirrors my own path on this planet to a T."

And we're both Aquarians, so perhaps there's something to astrology after all.

Complain about this comment
89. At 6:13pm on 09 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
78. At 3:58pm on 09 Jan 2009, rwbennett wrote:
"Yes, for a bit more. However, the AVERAGE American today has about a 5th grade education, even if they stayed in school longer. What made America great was the Protestant, White culture America was founded to be.."
In comes the biggest racist of the blog.

Complain about this comment
90. At 6:15pm on 09 Jan 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
AsaScot (#81), but Britian has become a "second rate power." No offense intended; most countries are third rate powers.

More to the point, of course pronouncements about the future are guesses, whether "grand" or not. What's wrong with being concerned about the future and wondering where we are heading?

My guess is that a united western Europe will be the next great power, in a hundred years or two. The only obstacles are the many languages and (as De Gaulle noted) cheeses.

Complain about this comment
91. At 6:18pm on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
77 NoRashDecisions
Thanks for your agreeable response.
Considering the nature of this enemy and their goals, I'm not unsympathetic toward Quantanamo, particularly after reading that about 50 former prisoners are now back in the field with Al Qaeda, and thus either killing or trying to do so. We should always be concerned that justice is done, but not to the extent that it handicaps our ability to fight this war on terror and protect citizens from those bent on their destruction and destroying a way of life.
The words of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are real food for thought and too easily ignored. Nevertheless, re Franklin's words I think we have to recognize that the world was a lot less complicated back then without electronics and all that it has brought. That said, those considering measures to protect their country should be constantly reminded of Franklin's words.
Incidentally, ref 75 and not your words, I don't think that the last election was "a stellar example of the power of participatory democracy and its health in this country". A Democrat-dominated media, CNN just one of many, made a mockery of democracy with its slant, distortions, and lack of objectivity. Another huge factor was the difference in MONEY available for campaigning. I guess if a supporter of the Democratic Party, it looked 'super', but to an observer it was a disgrace that above all reflected dismally on the U.S. media as a whole. Little wonder some in the media afterwards expressed shame over what had occurred in their profession.
As to his "We have control", no you don't, or certainly only partially, those with money and power do. Just consider the chicanery over Hillary Clinton vs Obama. You, and we, are often the pawns who unintentionally give credibility to the process.

Complain about this comment
92. At 6:36pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
On the subject of condoms (post 84 & 87)

In Italy almost every pharmacy has a condom vending machine on the OUTSIDE of the store .... and consequently birth control is always available. Yes, it is a catholic country! And no, they are not constantly vandalised!

Italy has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy in the developed world. Yes, there are other factors (strong family, "old fashionned" upbringing etc) but when you consider that the USA has almost 5 times the European average rate of teen pregnancies (per 1000 teenage girls) and almost 10 times the rate of Italy.

Let's here no more nonsense about abstinence and start to teach the people who need it most about contraception and sexual health.

Complain about this comment
93. At 6:43pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
#91 robloop
"Considering the nature of this enemy and their goals, I'm not unsympathetic toward Quantanamo, particularly after reading that about 50 former prisoners are now back in the field with Al Qaeda"

I am no apologist for al-Quaeda, but I believe it has been adequately shown in the last 7 years that if we in the West are to have a hope of convincing the rest of the world to be at peace and trade with us for profit (including our enemies) we must be seen to be following our own rules.

Thus I would have any terrorist suspect tried in a court of law, and if convicted banged up forever. But in Guantanamo it was never thus.

Your 50 prisoners "back" in the field, may never have been out there in the first place .... but after 5-6 years in Gitmo, I know where I'd be heading if I got out.

By saying that we have exacerbated this situation, one does give any tacit support to the motives of our enemies.

Bottom line, if the West is to remain dominant, we must simply be better than everybody else ... even if it seems hard or unfair.

The first step to peace is to remove the terrorists' recruiting tools.

Complain about this comment
94. At 7:10pm on 09 Jan 2009, frayedcat wrote:
Land of the free, home of the brave.

There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty, that
makes human nature rise above itself, in acts of bravery and heroism.
-Alexander Hamilton

Keep it free, USA ! ! !

Complain about this comment
95. At 7:43pm on 09 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
71.watermanaquarius wrote:

I know your excellent breeding would never allow you to aquire Conker attributes on these pages . . .

You never know; the squirrels have warned me about the dangers of prolonged exposure to suchlike members of the species and I see they are appearing in force again. You never know what might rub off on your fur.

So with that in mind, adieu.

Complain about this comment
96. At 7:44pm on 09 Jan 2009, Corinini wrote:
84 - happylaze

I know we have teen pregnancy, I know it is a problem and much higher than in other countries, I just seriously doubt that it affects the fertility rate as much as other issues.

And yes, I hate abstinence only education b/c it doesn't work.

But our fertility rate is not THAT high, it is just barely above replacement. I was just making the point that immigration is a much bigger contributor to the high birth rate and growing population than any number of teen pregnancies are. But I do realize it is a problem. And in fact, the teenage pregnancy rate is higest among the hispanic population in the U.S. - which correlates with the fact that they often have more children.

Complain about this comment
97. At 7:45pm on 09 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#91. robloop: "A Democrat-dominated media, CNN just one of many, made a mockery of democracy with its slant, distortions, and lack of objectivity."

Are you sure you're not Bill O'Reilly or perhaps Sean Hannity? Give us a break - the Right just cannot accept the fact that the American electorate was fed up with George Bush, now considered by many to be the worst American president ever. The same media were in existence when he won the previous election and no-one cried about slant, distortion and lack of objectivity then. Similarly, CNN and others were in existence when George Bush Sr was elected.

"Another huge factor was the difference in MONEY available for campaigning. I guess if a supporter of the Democratic Party, it looked 'super', but to an observer it was a disgrace that above all reflected dismally on the U.S. media as a whole."

The disgrace was that the McCain campaign couldn't raise enough funds to match that of Obama. With so many of our millionaires and billionaires belonging to the Republican Party, one would have thought that somehow they could have matched the sums which came from far less wealthy Democrat supporters.

The point you have missed is that a majority of Americans thought that McCain-Palin would have been a disaster for the country. As is the way, eventually there will be another Republican president, just as in Britain there will be another Conservative government. Only in dictatorships and "one party systems" is the political status quo maintained year-after-year-after-year. Accept the fact that President Obama was elected democratically by a majority of the electorate and that in another three years you will have the opportunity to vote again. If America doesn't like what he's done, then he'll be back to Chicago. That's how Democracy works.

Complain about this comment
98. At 8:00pm on 09 Jan 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
92, Rome.
"...the USA has almost 5 times the European average rate of teen pregnancies (per 1000 teenage girls) and almost 10 times the rate of Italy."

What you are not taking into account when you quote statistics is that the lower European birth rate skews them. Italy actually has a negative birth rate. A lower birthrate would automatically result in a lower rate of teen pregnancies. That lessens the factor of family, responsibility or self-discipline.

It seems obvious that the low fertility of Europe is tied to overpopulation. I have spoken with European married couples who stated categorically that they didn't want children. Amazing!

Complain about this comment
99. At 8:08pm on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
93 RomeStu
It troubles me, too, that men who possibly weren't involved in the current wars, landed up in Quantanamo, but some comfort is that most there are there because they were involved, and locked up are a few big fish.
That aside, this being war, why should enemy combatants captured in this war, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, or some bomb-making backroom in the Phillipines, be given time in court? Why, because they don't wear uniforms? Since when are POWs arraigned in court? Who created the new rules? Lawyers?
It's my deep impression now that many in the West haven't yet any idea of the mindset of those who oppose us, or an understanding that no amount of humanity and decency on our behalf will convince them that we have a superior way of life to which they should aspire.
As to 'mindset', consider this. A few months ago the British in Afghanistan wanted to take by flatbed trailers huge hydro-electric turbines into the mountains to a new dam. With the help of clever diversionary tactics that involved special British, and, I believe, some U.S. special forces, they accomplished the mission. But before doing this they tried to negotiate with the Taliban, explaining that the turbines were to generate electricity. Said the Taliban negotiator or contact, "We don't need electricity, we've got Allah."

Complain about this comment
100. At 9:08pm on 09 Jan 2009, watermanaquarius wrote:
allmymarbles # 98
From Nationmaster-
Average age for first child UK 29.1, Nederland 28.6, Portugal 26.4 USA 24.9 [Italy no figures].
Teen birth USA # 1, UK #12, Portugal #25, Italy #36, Netherlands # 38
Italy and Portugal being mainly Catholic.
We can all use polls / figures to slant an argument or discussion.dependant upon which way we want it to go.
Could it be that if you check out education cijphers and the above a pattern emerges? Those getting it [education], delay a family, and those without it go for "it" without thinking about the consequences.
The UK has strangely enough, good and bad on both fronts!

Complain about this comment
101. At 9:12pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
98 Marbles ....

I'm fully aware that Italy has a negative birth rate (currently around 1.3, as opposed to 2.1 in the USA).

However the disparity between the USA teenage pregnancy rate (around 75 per 1000) and Italy (around 7 per 1000) cannot be simply explained away by fertility rates.

There are many complex factors at play. The fact is that the USA has a problem with unwanted teenage pregnancy, and Italy does not.

Incidentally inthe USA of the teenage pregnancy around one third are born, one third aborted, one third miscarried.

I agree with you that many Europeans do want to have lots of children, mainly for economic reasons - I have 2, and that makes me unusual in Italy in my generation, where single child families are becoming the norm.
But look at France, where huge tax benefits accrue for having 3rd and 4th children. I have many friends in France who can happily keep breeding and not ruin themselves, creating lots of new French people who wil later work and pay taxes to fund the ever aging population.

Complain about this comment
102. At 9:27pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
99 robloop

I think you oversimplify things. For a start the mindset of those who oppose us is very narrow because they generally live in countries where they are subject to high levels of anti-American propaganda and indoctrination.
We in the west have the benefit of open education and freedom of thought. Those who oppose us are fed a line to create an effect.
Parallel with the Cold War scare about the Russians ..... the average Russian only knew what he was allowed to know by the Kremlin. It was the leaders who were the problem.
Now we have the Mullahs firing up disaffected youth with anti-West rhetoric, and it gets easier with every civilian killed, mis-treated or wrongly imprisonned.

Re garding Guantanamo Bay, one innocent person interned there without charge is a massive recruiting tool. It is in own interests for things to be out in the open.

Re being "at war" .... legal definitions of war are complex, and have been messed with by many politicians over the years. You cannot have a war on terror any more than you can have a war on drugs.

The reason these people should be tried in court is that they are terrorists. To call them enemy combattants gives them credibility in their own eyes and the eyes of their potential recruits.

Only with education and openness can these issues be resolved. It will hurt ad it will take time, but the onus is always on the "big player" to play by his own rules. Take away their recruiting tools and eventually things will change.

Complain about this comment
103. At 9:32pm on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
97 David_Cunard
Yes, I'm sure I'm neither Bill O'Reilly - who I haven't seen in years, nor Sean Hannity, and I also haven't forgotten comments from surprising sources over their shame about what occurred in the media during the last election. Nothing you've said negates the possibility that media tactics or conduct hasn't changed since the days of Bush Snr, or that the media was fair during the election won by Bush Jnr. I remember that it was not.
I'm not going to dispute that McCain could not raise the money from wealthy Americans, but I also haven't forgotten that he and Obama committed themselves to public funds, an undertaking over which Obama reneged.
That aside I'm not questioning that Obama was elected by a majority - but I won't add "fair and square". I will also say that watching McCain flounder made me lose much of the sympathy I had, and that Sarah Palin was a very poor choice, but shabbily treated by the contemptible liberal media. Whatever her shortcomings, she did not ask to chosen as she was, and did not deserve the scandalous hostility she got.

Complain about this comment
104. At 9:44pm on 09 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
Decoupling

The US was dependent on the other nations propping up its economy.

If nations like China decide they should use this opportunity of a world wide slow down to decouple themselves from the US economy ...the US will not be an economic super power for long..

Another nation might try to take power from the US now..while it was weakened by the wars and economic slow down.

The US is a nation that can produce George Bush's pre-emptive war and it has people who are untrustworthy like Madoff...that will worry other nations and they will not want a US with those kinds of problems to have a great deal of power.

If the laws are not working well enough to make the US stand out as a safe place for money...then people will move their investments to other safer and more trustworthy nations.

I hope Obama can turn this around...but he is not even in office and already the sniping begins...

Complain about this comment
105. At 9:52pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
robloop 103

CNN may be a bit more left - Fox is a bit more right.
The right have far more in the way of talkshow propaganda, and since it is well known that most people follow the media which gives them the views they like, it is unlikely that simply biased reporting (which I don't believe it was) could change alot of peoples minds.

The difference last year was that Obama had policies and ideas, and McCain did not. No amount of media spin or bias in either direction could change that.

I agree with you that Palin was a poor choice (I would use a stronger word, but secretly I'm glad he chose Palin as it contributed to Obama's eventual victory). I disagree that she was treated shabbily. The media is there to put politicians in the spotlight .... she was new, relatively unknown (be honest - you hadn't heard of her!) and it was up to her to make an impression. After all she wasn't running for the parent/teacher association. Palin, by her behaviour, her ignorance and her pseudo-folksy winking got exactly the treatment she deserved.

I think she got off lightly - imagine what the British press would have done to her!

Complain about this comment
106. At 9:55pm on 09 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#103. robloop: "I'm not questioning that Obama was elected by a majority - but I won't add "fair and square"."

Then presumably you'd agree that George W. Bush was not elected by a majority for his first term - neither fair nor square. Mr Obama's success was clearly both fair and square, I don't see how you can argue with the result.

"I will also say . . . that Sarah Palin was a very poor choice, but shabbily treated by the contemptible liberal media. Whatever her shortcomings, she did not ask to chosen as she was, and did not deserve the scandalous hostility she got."

Shabbily treated? Her shortcomings were revealed by the media, about which we should all be grateful. As for not being asked to be chosen, she could very well have declined the offer. The McCain campaign failed to vet her properly and she became a laughing stock. Politics isn't fair and she should have known that she would be picked to pieces; she would never have stood a chance with some of the more probing British interviewers. Winking, folksy comments, expensive clothes - all set her up for caricature. She's had her moment in the sun and if the Republicans should use her again, heaven help them - it will be an even longer come-back trail.

Complain about this comment
107. At 10:12pm on 09 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
David_Cunard

Your earlier point that how one writes or speaks affects how one's ideas are judged is well taken with Sarah Palin.

Can you imagine if Palin by some weird state of affairs had become president of the United States?

What must the leaders of other nations think of someone like Palin becoming the leader of a nation with the kind of military strength the US has?

Complain about this comment
108. At 10:13pm on 09 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
106 - David

Wow - a moment of synchronicity. We posted almost identical responses to robloop within 3 minutes.
Spooky.

Well, it's late here in Rome, so I'll wish you all a nice weekend and sign off
Ciao.

Complain about this comment
109. At 10:35pm on 09 Jan 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
In my opinion, America does not follow the traditional progression because our government's checks and balances have kept us from the brink. But if I had to designate phases in US history it would be as follows:
bondage: pilgrams persecuted in England.
spiritual faith: pilgrams found 1st colonies.
bondage: British colonialism in America.
great courage: The Revolution.
liberty: Founding of US and its constitution.
abundance: manifest destiny.
selfishness: height of slavery.
courage: US Civil War.
liberty: end of slavery.
abundance: Reconstruction/industrialization.
apathy: end Reconstruction/Jim crow laws
abundance: early 1900s
courage: civil rights movements/WWI
liberty: universal sufrage
abundance: Roaring 20s
selfishness: 1929
courage: New Deal/WWII/Cold War
abundance: The 50s/Suburbia
apathy: McCarthyism/Vietnam
courage: civil rights movements/SpaceRace
liberty: integration/end of Jim-crow
apathy: 70s stagflation and gas station lines
courage: Morning in America/Berlin Wall
spiritual faith: The Evangelical Awakening
abundance: the 90s
courage: War on Terror
selfishness: Partisanship/Madoff/Subprimes
Courage: Obama elected Pres.
...............abundance or dependance next?

I would hope that next is abundance given the last 300 years of history, but you never now.

Complain about this comment
110. At 11:00pm on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
102 RomeStu
It's not a matter of "over-simplying things", it is also the knowledge that to many Muslims we are "infidels" and as such disposable.
A few short years ago, either on BBC or CBC (in Canada) I saw a Muslim woman interviewed (I think she was from Pakistan). Like Salman Rushdie, author of the book, 'Satanic Verses', Muslims radicals had placed a price on her head. In her case it was for being too outspoken on a few issues within Islam, not least the lack of rights for women. She told the interviewer that Muslims who don't consider it the right of Muslims to harshly treat non-Muslims, including killing them if they did not convert to Islam, were those who did not know their Quran.
So it is not simply a matter of being subjected to "high levels of anti-American propaganda", it's a whole belief system that contributes.
Re "war on terror", you can have a war against those conducting acts of terror - which is what is occurring. Over the weekend the U.S. killed in Pakistan two Kenyan Muslims who played a big role in the destruction of those two U.S. embassies in East Africa. And you could have a winable war on drugs, if prepared to execute those caught trafficking drugs.
I wish it were just as simple as taking away "the recruiting tools", but think that today the underlying belief system plays a huge role.

Complain about this comment
111. At 11:10pm on 09 Jan 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
I do not understand the hostility toward Catholicism in some of the above postings. The church does not command Catholic nations like it did in the Middle Ages. I, and most Americans for that matter, could care less about immigration as long as they do it legally because immigrating illegaly is a slap in the face to our legal institutions; ignorance to the law is never an excuse to break the law. As a non-Latino Catholic American, I find the talk of keeping safe American Protestant Ideals to be a joke. I agree with the church's positions, especially on abortion, however I am and will always be American born and raised. As long as my Catholic brethren from south of the boarder agree to join the melting pot rather than make their own pot, most of us will get along just fine.

Complain about this comment
112. At 11:14pm on 09 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
106 David_Cunard / 105 Romestu
Joe Biden is a bag of wind, yet never did he or his gaffs get the kind of exposure Palin's did. Why did his "shortcomings" not get the exposure they deserved? On CNN I once saw John King describe Biden as a person who had a reputation in Washington for loving the sound of his own voice more than anything. He's a clot, yet was allowed to get away with his nonsense.
I am not, as should be evident, questioning the election results, just the means to getting there through a grossly slanted media that helped more than you would be prepared to acknowledge.
Re Bush I would say his first election was unsatisfactory, but confirmed by the Supreme Court.
I agree that the British media would have done a real number on Palin, but so too on Joe Biden.

Complain about this comment
113. At 11:54pm on 09 Jan 2009, DCHeretic wrote:
I never did buy into the "demise of America" arguement. The US will co-exist in a multi-polar world, but will also continue to exert tremendous influence in that world.

American supremacy has always been more than arms and dollars. The American success came about largely through its democracy and the free exchange of ideas. States that restrict assembly, freedom of expression, innovation, and travel will not be able to achieve the same level of success as the USA. China and Russia will need major reform and more self-confidence before they can attain the same level of power as the USA. India is a democracy, but it will need to emphatically address inequalities in social status and more seriously tackle the religious tensions that have bedeviled it since independence.

The American success at integrating immigrants is indeed a key factor in its global power. One need not give up customs, languages, and vested interests from the Old Country in order to be an American. America is as much a set of ideas and ideals as it is a physical place. For that reason, there will always be a segment of the American population that cares deeply about events in the world and encourages US engagement in the global theatre.

One thing that many Europeans do not fully appreciate is the political power wielded by immigrant groups. A Hispanic majority America may indeed decide that South America is its "backyard" and that Europe is irrelevant. America is a vibrant, flexible, and evolving country that will continue to be a global power for years to come. Just how that power is expressed will be up to future generations of Americans who will collectively trace their ancestry to every nation on earth.

Complain about this comment
114. At 11:57pm on 09 Jan 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
RomStu:

"am no apologist for al-Quaeda, but I believe it has been adequately shown in the last 7 years that if we in the West are to have a hope of convincing the rest of the world to be at peace and trade with us for profit (including our enemies) we must be seen to be following our own rules.

Thus I would have any terrorist suspect tried in a court of law, and if convicted banged up forever. But in Guantanamo it was never thus.

Your 50 prisoners "back" in the field, may never have been out there in the first place .... but after 5-6 years in Gitmo, I know where I'd be heading if I got out.

By saying that we have exacerbated this situation, one does give any tacit support to the motives of our enemies.

Bottom line, if the West is to remain dominant, we must simply be better than everybody else ... even if it seems hard or unfair.

The first step to peace is to remove the terrorists' recruiting tools."

There is a real danger that opposition to Bush can turn into a romanticized and idealizied view of terrororists, as expressed in your views here.

The idea that Al Qaeda are merely the helpless victims of the west is foolish and dangerous. You start out by saying you are "no apologist" but that is exactly what you are doing.

It is trendy and popular to blame Americans for everything now, but the most serious danger associated with this is that other dangers are minimized and explained away. It is possible to oppose Guantanamo and also to hold terrorists responsible fror their actions. it is much easier to blame Americans. That trend must be resisted.

Complain about this comment
115. At 00:13am on 10 Jan 2009, NoRashDecisions wrote:
Rome Stu #93 and 102: Hear, Hear!!!! You took the words right out of my mouth!! Its a shame that there is a constitutional ban on foreigners running for president, because if there wasn't I think you'd be an exalent contender!!

As for your post 105 '"I think she got off lightly - imagine what the British press would have done to her!"

Actually I thought several times during the campaign what absolute fun it would be for Paxman to go at her or for her to face PM Qs!! Wow! What fun!

Complain about this comment
116. At 02:12am on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#115. NoRashDecisions: "Its a shame that there is a constitutional ban on foreigners running for president"

That would probably have meant that Arnold Schwarzenegger could/would have been a candidate - and look at teh mess he's made in California. Gray Davis may have had a descriptive first name, but in hindsight he was far better than "Arnie" as the British are wont to call him. One movie actor in The White House is one too many!

Complain about this comment
117. At 04:13am on 10 Jan 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
Scanning through the comments on this, I have something to add. (although I know I am late, the next topic is already posted....)
Most of those who wrote disparagingly about America themselves indicate why we are great, and unknowingly indicate the trends and (blush) virtues that will carry us forward to continued greatness.
Detractors - we are not like you, when you fear the future. We are not like you, when you draw your political and cultural and social borders tight around you. We are not like you when you say it just cannot be done (anymore). We are not like you when you accept the inertia of paralytic microregulation. We are not like you when you fail (refuse) to pass on your millenia of wisdom and culture and skill and knowledge to the strangers among you. You did to us as we escaped your bonds, and we thank and honor you for it.

Of course, some of us are like you - there are plenty of old curmudgeons, e.g. the racists of all colors - and prenatally defeated leftists to wimper "doom, doom, doom" - but they are resoundingly ignored around here, and we will not let them hold power because we despise their odor of self-deprecation and shame at being human, and we will not follow them into the prison of noble despair you seem to be living in.

DCHeretic has it right in 113. We are based on new principles, although they are more than 200 years old in practice, they seem still to be new, to you. We operate and think differently from the European model. I like Texas. That gets me into trouble, I know. You should try it some time. I am old, and all our kids live in Texas for the opportunity and for the 'just do it' fresh air. When I was young it was California. Now they are beginning to harden up in California, to loose the real dream in favor of micromanagement and grand pettiness. Perhaps after a good long while it will be Alaska, or Montana, or the Dekotas.

Maybe it does come from the room we have to move about. Maybe it is more than that.

KScurmudgeon

Complain about this comment
118. At 04:18am on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#111. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "I do not understand the hostility toward Catholicism in some of the above postings. . . . I agree with the church's positions, especially on abortion, however I am and will always be American born and raised."

The hostility comes from that last sentence. The Church would impose her tenets on the rest of the world, including America. Americans espouse freedom of expression and action - the Catholic Church would forbid mechanical birth control, abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research - and forget its awful history of cruelty and in far more recent times, sexual abuse. Incense, transubstantiation, belief in the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven (which has no biblical basis whatsoever) all conspire to make thinking people wary of the teachings of the Church - and of course, there would have been no Protestant movement had not that been so. If you were on the opposing side, I believe you would understand why hostility continues to exist.

Complain about this comment
119. At 04:22am on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#112. robloop: "Re Bush I would say his first election was unsatisfactory, but confirmed by the Supreme Court."

Unsatisfactory indeed! Weasel words.

Complain about this comment
120. At 09:46am on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
144 TimothyR
"The idea that Al Qaeda are merely the helpless victims of the west is foolish and dangerous. You start out by saying you are "no apologist" but that is exactly what you are doing."

___________

You put words in my mouth. I never said that Al-Quaeda are helpless victims of anyone. Al-Quaeda is the organisation that uses the poorly educated, easily indoctrinated youth as its footsoldiers.

_________

and you say
"It is trendy and popular to blame Americans for everything now, but the most serious danger associated with this is that other dangers are minimized and explained away. It is possible to oppose Guantanamo and also to hold terrorists responsible fror their actions. it is much easier to blame Americans. That trend must be resisted."

__________

I am neither blaming America (and Britain too) for "EVERYTHING", nor am I minimising the serious danger. I am merely stating that the single largest recruitment tool that the terrorists have is the illegal actions of the West. If we do not follow our rules, why should be we expect others to do so.

I oppose Guantanamo and wish to hold terrorists responsible for their actions .... in a court of law.

If you don't understand that certain actions of the west aid the recruitment of terrorists then think back 10 years and see how large Al-Quaeda and the Islamic Fundamentalist terror movement was, then compare in with now.

And yes, I know the attacks 9/11 spurred USA anbd BRitain into action .... but even Bush has admitted the war on Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan was the right thing to do - Iraq was stupid and has exacerbated our problems immensely.

Complain about this comment
121. At 2:12pm on 10 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
119 David_Cunard
"Weasel words"?
Signed: The Weasel Supreme Court.

Complain about this comment
122. At 2:49pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:

Bottom line, if the West is to remain dominant, we must simply be better than everybody else ... even if it seems hard or unfair.

this is the problem.
why must the west be dominant?

there are no safe words in international politics.

Complain about this comment
123. At 3:03pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
#111. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "I do not understand the hostility toward Catholicism in some of the above postings. .

bienvenueEnLouisiana.

A rare moment indeed.
Despite their stance on abortion(which in a way I understand,but I think they soemetimes put above other pressing issues) I agree there is a lot of anti Catholic feeling or postings.

America has a real problem with Catholics .Some because of the abuse that went on in the american catholic church(he who's religion is without pedophiles cast the first stone).
The abortion issue is a big one for many here, is it not strange how many leap on this abortion issue while forgetting that they catholic church is equally against the Death Penalty.

And it seems the pope is equally against the slaughter that is going on in Gaza at the moment.

Now here is the strange bit, though american catholics go on about anti abortion way fewer go against the death penalty and I suspect ways fewer still will oppose the actions of Israel.

I was brought up catholic and believed none of it, but it does not make me forget the teachings that were there.Many words from that wise old hippy Jesus.

Complain about this comment
124. At 3:08pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
Incense, transubstantiation, belief in the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven (which has no biblical basis whatsoever) all conspire to make thinking people wary of the teachings of the Church .

Personally DC I think it a bit misogynistic that protestant churches allow ministers to be women but give almost no place other than as a vessel to Mary.

The lady that brought up and influenced the very same Jesus that so many worship.

I have met more than a few americans that mention this in their opposition of the Catholic Church.
They say things like" THOSE Catholics worship Mary more than Jesus" etc.

Complain about this comment
125. At 3:16pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
In Italy almost every pharmacy has a condom vending machine on the OUTSIDE of the store .... and consequently birth control is always available. Yes, it is a catholic country! And no, they are not constantly vandalised!

lol but sometimes out of stock, especially after a party night .

Complain about this comment
126. At 3:32pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
KScurmudgeon

How nice that you are able to use "we" to describe Americans.

And all those "leftists" who have Helped create America I suppose are not American enough by your standards.

Imo YOUR ideas are the problem!

And we better hope that the other nations ignore the arrogant Americans and give us some financial support.

There were economists like Paul Krugman who saw what was coming...but your group ignored them.

When ideology overtakes pragmatism we get the kind of mess that America is in now.

America had greatness because it was pragmatic and it had a philosophy of human rights that allowed people to achieve at their ability.

If other nations follow human rights values and give:

education,
food ,
shelter,
health care
and equal opportunity to their people

...they will achieve also.

Complain about this comment
127. At 3:35pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
"It seems obvious that the low fertility of Europe is tied to overpopulation. I have spoken with European married couples who stated categorically that they didn't want children. Amazing!"

Marbles it is also true that many couples in europe as with a section of america really do not think that bringing kids into a world of ever increasing fragility and promotion of War is a good thing.

And they can figure out how to get a dunky on. Which can be free and encouraged.

though education is a big one.
Here in the states I have met at least 3 families where the parents literally thought they were breeding for Jesus and their church. They love their kids deeply and instil in them the idea that war for "the right reasons " is good, and having babies is the sum productive value of your life,(which is darwin wise true), and then they claim they need that Suburban monster rig because they have such a big family.

So I'm really into that group;)

And want me to pay for all their kids to go to school to ignore basic lessons like "how to use a dunky"

Complain about this comment
128. At 3:36pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
happylaze

From my point of view the problem with the
Catholic Church in America is that some of the priests are clearly telling their church members who to vote for.

Churches should not be tax free if they are involved with politics.

Complain about this comment
129. At 3:58pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
99 Rob loop
"Since when are POWs arraigned in court? Who created the new rules? Lawyers? "

since when were POW taken from homes with no gun , no uniform ,no battle flown in secrecy , no family told what happened , denied red cross visits(for a while), beaten tortured in some cases killed.If not denied contact with relatives for years.

That is the problem either they are terrorists tried in a court as criminals or they are POW with all the rights attributed to soldiers in a conflict by the UN and the Geneva convention.

Which is it?

Bethpa you asked why no mention here of the terrorist activities of anthrax etc.

The school I live near has had 3 bomb threats this week.(not a usual thing I would add).
There has just been a case of two guys that tried to rob a bank in Gresham who's bomb killed 3 cops.

No cry of terrorism. Which is what both were trying to do.

Why because they word left out that gets the blood tingling in the US "International".
To many here(not you obviously) the only terrorists are "forners" .If it is not international they ignore it.

Earth First has contacts abroad or travelled to get enlightened then wooppeee "international terrorists"

The two bank bombers are trying to plead not guilty because they think the bomb was just a game or something.
I really cannot understand it.

Complain about this comment
130. At 4:17pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
happylaze

There is still no adequate explanation of how that anthrax was developed.

So the concern continues that someone is out there who knows how to use anthrax.

My husband is a physicist. How am I supposed to feel if someone from the FBI decides to interview me? considering the treatment given to the scientists who have been working for the government ? Hatfield received some sum of money for all the presumably false allegations.

For a while Al Queda was blamed for the antrax attacks.

Of course Al Queda is interested in attacking liberals in America (not)

Who would be interested in attacking American liberals? (answer that imo and you will be led to the people behind the attack and its not foreigners)

Complain about this comment
131. At 4:22pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
Happylaze

Hatfield received 5.8 million US dollars in the courts from the US government, because of the way he was treated during the FBI investigation to find out whoever used anthrax as a terrorist weapon.

Complain about this comment
132. At 4:28pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
128 Beth that seems to be the case.
And I agree.
What makes me sick is as a European brought up person I see the American Catholic church in a different light.
The way some treated Kerry because he wants no woman to suffer for his beliefs was despicable to me. But then so many non Catholic americans agree with that so they were given undue influence.

I would ask each one how starting wars and having one of the worse records for executing innocent people as Gov.of Texas makes GW better than Kerry.

But then I am not a church goer because I really do not believe.

But I would remember that as many religions have different factions ranging from sworn servitude and blind obedience to those that ignore the teachings that would prevent them becoming whatever they wish.

I see little difference between all the major religions.
But do wonder why Catholics are so hated even openly here in the states.

There is also another rub on this wall that could be done the one to find out why so many anti catholic american youth were so supportive of the IRA.

I found it funny when I have heard someone accusing blind faith following catholics for abortion ,how they want to get rid of it them whatever.
tell them you are a Brit and they start accusing you of decimating their forefathers in the old country.

Well they could have a point but a confused one.

It is good to read you here again, Beth or her Pa.

On the Charity status , that is true,but because of that american catholic Church allowed their congregation to being brainwashed into the state they are now in they end up with priests that think abortion is worse than not reading death warrants and starting wars.

The fact that they (american bishops)sided with so many hate groups and agreed with so many hate churches astounds me.

Now I come from a British European angle on the Catholic church(ps that made me a possible terrorist in some (very few freaks)eyes).

(And was also funny because them same catholic terrorists were the ones trying to blow up the family car if given a chance,but not when I was in the UK, that was in the states.)

Back to coming from that euro angle the african church is less understanding of social issues i hear.but then that is the same with the evangelical witch cleanser as well.

Complain about this comment
133. At 4:42pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
Bethpa I was sure it was another home sprung american attack,.

a scare that went wrong probably. something to make us all think that 9/11 had a follow up.

I am sure no Muslim was involved.

Oh and to change a little some question why Palin was lambasted, it was so unfair. lol nuff said. here's a huffylink

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/palin-caroline-kennedy-ge_n_156335.html

Complain about this comment
134. At 4:48pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
128 bethpa
"Churches should not be tax free if they are involved with politics."

Churches should not be tax free. Period.

Complain about this comment
135. At 4:55pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
happylaze

I can understand the principle that a new human life is important. No one imo can be certain of when the human soul enters a fetus though. St Augustine thought during pregnancy around 40 days for males and 90 days for females. ( Does that mean females are more complex to make than males? : ) )

And my understanding of Christ's teachings is that no human soul is any different than any other human soul. All of our souls are equal.

"to find out why so many anti catholic american youth were so supportive of the IRA

I don't understand that either. I saw the film In My Father's Name and other films and the IRA has people in it who are terrorists imo.

My home in the US is Bethlehem PA...hence bethpa. My Christian name is the Irish word for "girl" : ) Some people tell me I have a celtic personality ( God help me)

The Pope opposed the Iraq war ..but the American bishops ignored that...I think there are anti Muslim feelings that are behind this love for war in the ME.

Complain about this comment
136. At 5:03pm on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#124. happylaze: "Personally DC I think it a bit misogynistic that protestant churches allow ministers to be women but give almost no place other than as a vessel to Mary."

The reverse is also true - other than nuns, the Catholic Church has no place for women. Protestants generally don't pray to her or the saints for intercession with the Almighty and really she isn't mentioned in the gospels following the babyhood of Jesus. All of the veneration of Mary has come from tradition rather than what is in the New Testament. Protestantism was an attempt to go back to basics, stripping away what appeared to be superstition (!) from the Church. For me though, I like the ceremonial and theatrical aspects of Catholic and CofE 'High Church', but I don't accept the beliefs behind them.

Complain about this comment
137. At 5:04pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
RomeStu

If a church is involved with charitable activity and aids people ..then I can understand a tax free status as a charity...

but once a church advocates for a political candidate that tax free status should be lost and not reinstated in the future. If its gone its gone.

People will like Catholics more if there were not the involvement with supporting political candidates.

Complain about this comment
138. At 5:06pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
Bethpa - to follow on, however I do agree with you that the pulpit is no place for politics - whether the pulpit is catholic, baptist, lutheran or what.

All religions should lose their tax free status immediately. Religion has been a business for 2000 years and so should pay it's taxes. "Render unto Caesar what is due" it says in some book I read once!

Incidentally, as an atheist, I actually have more respect for the more "fundamentalist" (and that does not mean terrorist) members of a religion. They actually stick to the core beliefs of their chosen religion.
Too many branches of Christianity simply reinterpret the book (that was put together by Constantine and a bunch of priests and politicians in the early 300s) to suit their needs .... and don't even get me started on Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and the other fringe groups.

I repsect anyone's right to believe in anything they like .... but it does not mean I have to respect their belief.

Look at this link with humour (you'll have to cut and paste to your browser probably)

http://dontclickthis.whatingods.name/occamsrazor.jpg

Complain about this comment
139. At 5:16pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
RomeStu

I'm a Unitarian..and Obama's grandmother was buried recently within the Unitarian Church. I'm almost afraid to write that because so much has been made of Obama's religion...and Unitarians are not liked by religious conservatives...

Complain about this comment
140. At 5:17pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
bethpa
"and the IRA has people in it who are terrorists imo."

"imo" - it's not your opinion, it's a fact. The IRA was a terrorist organisation, that was heavily funded by a registered US charity called NorAid, whose stated aim was the creation of a 32 county nation of Ireland, following the 1916 proclamation.

I've been in South Boston pubs in the late 80s and been encouraged to put a few bucks in a jar "for the boys". I left.

That more than rankled (and still does) when I think of those murdered by the IRA.

However the Irish situation is resolved now, after much patience and negotiation .... not by bombing bombing and more bombing.

Complain about this comment
141. At 5:33pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
bethpa
"If a church is involved with charitable activity and aids people ..then I can understand a tax free status as a charity...
but once a church advocates for a political candidate that tax free status should be lost and not reinstated in the future. If its gone its gone."

We basically agree.
I would be ok with tax credits on provable charitable work - feeding the poor, shelters etc etc.
However politics is more than who you vote for. It is policy as well.

The other issue of why catholics are so disliked or distrusted is odd. To me all believers show themselves to credulous .... how much more unlikely is the catholic transubstantiation than the generally accepted christian ideas of Christ raising the dead or walking on water?

I long for the day when reason wins.

Oh and have you all seen the "Atheist Bus" adverts in Britain .... several complaints will lead the Advertising Standards Agency to rule on the existence of god .... laughable. Her's the link to cut and paste...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4177717/Atheist-bus-adverts-could-lead-to-watchdog-ruling-on-Gods-existence.html

Complain about this comment
142. At 5:38pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
RomeStu

Not everyone who supported the IRA was a terrorist...

It seems possible for organizations that start out with terrorist factions to move over into being political and losing their terrorist origins.

(The British mistreated the Irish during the famines.)

Complain about this comment
143. At 5:42pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
139 bethpa
I didn't know what a Unitarian was, so I looked you up. I can see why the Catholics don't like you, or any of the other churches really. They're never fond of people who disagree with them.

It saddens me also that so much was made of Obama's religion. Why do candidates have to profess some deep level of faith.

As I've said before, I am an atheist, but I defend anyone's right to believe in anything. Not their right to respect for those beliefs, and not their right to impose them on other people.

It would not surprise me if Obama is a secret atheist, who has been playing the game for years because that is how it has to be in the USA.
Religious politicians tend to play emotive single issues - gay rigths, abortion etc. However if they did a bit more helping the poor and turning the other cheek perhaps the world would be different ... or at least less hypocritical.

Complain about this comment
144. At 5:54pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
RomeStu

Its a shame they had to write in the word "probably". If they believe there is no God they should be able to say and advertise that.

Signs like that would create an uproar in the US. Those buses would be damaged in the South ...by people who will say they are Christians...

Complain about this comment
145. At 6:13pm on 10 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
The Pope opposed the Iraq war ..but the American bishops ignored that...I think there are anti Muslim feelings that are behind this love for war in the ME. "

BethPA there are definitely anti muslim feelings at play. the whole of America was led to believe the "they are all jihadists "we see that here often.

I generally think most of america's problems are self created and self ignored.
their version of the catholic church being one.

140 Stu in Rome.
I have similar feelings and attitude to the IRA. As a Brit in the states who's father was a diplomat in the states. we were officially to check for bombs , change routes.
I know the FBI did find one group in Idaho trying to get a plan together.
I never saw them as freedom fighters and did not like the fact that they drilled kneecaps of teens for joyriding because it brought the police to the area or because someone sold some hash and wasn't on the right payrole.
But here in the states they were seen as" freedom fighters.
In terms of the atrocities committed by the brits they were wrong but compared to some downright modest.

Complain about this comment
146. At 6:45pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
The famine in Ireland and its serious consequences of over one million dead where partially caused by governmental policies in Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Death_toll.

"The famine is still a controversial event in Irish history. Debate and discussion on the British government's response to the failure of the potato crop in Ireland and the subsequent large-scale starvation, and whether or not this constituted genocide, remains a historically and politically-charged issue."

"Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People.... Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish people within the meaning of Article II (c) of the 1948 [Hague] Genocide Convention."

quote from Francis Boyle

Complain about this comment
147. At 6:47pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
RomeStu

Beatrix Potter was a Unitarian..so I guess so too was Peter Rabbit..

My guess is that Obama has a respect for religion and realizes its central importance to so many.
I believe that he is a humanist... and its unknown to me his relationship to God.
( I'm not even sure how my relationship with God is going...much less someone else's : ) )

Complain about this comment
148. At 6:57pm on 10 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
123 & 124 happylaze
Your postings gave me a good deal of pleasure with their surprising honesty. However, there is one thing in 123 concerning which, probably invertantly, you are wrong. Re your Catholic upbringing, if you recognized wisdom in the teachings of that "wise old hippy, Jesus", you didn't believe "none of it", you believed 'some of it'.
I'm not Catholic, but also consider many here unfairly anti-Catholic. Mistakes and all (not least abuse of young boys by perverts on whom I would happily employ the hangman's noose, or guillotine), it stands for something and embraces rules (such as moral absolutes) from which everyone can benefit.
And you are right about Mary, there is "no Biblical basis whatsover". She wasn't deity, and even if a special woman, we humans can't just manufacture her as such and then elevate her above Jesus, but with some that seems to be the case.
No offence intended to Catholics, but I believe that happylaze is right here.

Complain about this comment
149. At 7:22pm on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#146. bethpa: "The famine in Ireland and its serious consequences of over one million dead where partially caused by governmental policies in Britain."

Let's not start on the problems that have beset Ireland; there was prolonged discussion on the subject just awhile ago and it was resolved no better than those involving the Middle East. Religion seems bound to cause divisiveness and, although largely superstition, will continue to do so for many years, perhaps centuries, to come.

Complain about this comment
150. At 7:22pm on 10 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
129 happylaze
"Which is it", you asked. After reading this posting I more clearly think there is a distinction between the combatants we face. Those caught on battlefields with a gun or having dropped their gun upon capture, are POWs even if not wearing a uniform and should be stuck in a POW camp where they remain until hostilities end.
Those captured in homes and against whom there is clear evidence of conspiring should probably should be tried in court. But it seems that no one hard and fast rule can apply to combatants in this unusual conflict.
And no, I don't consider it humane to whisk people away and then not inform their families. It's a thing that was common practice in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe under communism, Chile under Pinochet, and what they still do in China, so not something we in the West should lower ourselves.

Complain about this comment
151. At 7:47pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
Hmmm....

Many modern religions try to minimize the role of women.

At least the Catholics show respect for motherhood. Its a big deal to give birth to the son of God.

And personally I believe that Mary Magdalene had a very close relationship with Christ which was erased by men within the early Christian Church. She was a disciple.

There was a Gospel of Mary ..and only a few pages have survived...but that gospel would give legitimacy to religious leadership by women...

Complain about this comment
152. At 7:48pm on 10 Jan 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
So many excellent posts and a really civil discussion!

To#139Bethpa

I am also UU and one thing I have never understood is why we receive so much animosity for being accepting of all and not forcing our personal beliefs on others.

Complain about this comment
153. At 7:53pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
David

I think there are parallels in all attempts to commit genocide...and people become understandably emotional when they believe their group has been targeted.

I don't support terrorist groups at all... ever

but I do think they come about as a response to a perceived threat...and that threat could be genocide..or it could be the threat of a destruction of one's culture or one's religion.

Terrorist groups arise because of some problem..find the problem and solve it and you remove the reason for the terrorist group.

(easy to write...hard to do)

Complain about this comment
154. At 8:25pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
#152 aquarizonagal

Yes they will cut Unitarians out of cross denominational church groups involving charity even. Unitarians accept agnostics and atheists and often have people who have left religions like Catholicism. Some ex priests and ex nuns become Unitarians. That freedom of thought and movement from a religion I suppose is a direct threat?

Unitarians have the highest SAT scores of any religious group. Our kids are smart : )

Complain about this comment
155. At 8:48pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
144 bethpa wrote:
"RomeStu
Its a shame they had to write in the word "probably". If they believe there is no God they should be able to say and advertise that."

__________________

I too think they should have omitted the word probably, but the atheists were maybe trying not to be "absolutist" in the way that many religious people are.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

you also write
"Signs like that would create an uproar in the US. Those buses would be damaged in the South ...by people who will say they are Christians..."

This is very sad, but I agree is certainly true. Where's that tolerance? Or are their ideas so flimsy and weak that they bear no scrutiny or questionning?

Complain about this comment
156. At 8:52pm on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#154. bethpa: "Unitarians have the highest SAT scores of any religious group. Our kids are smart : )"

Perhaps it's their (Unitarian?) teachers who get the best out of them.

Complain about this comment
157. At 9:25pm on 10 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
#155 RomeStu

I think they are afraid that if the US is not God fearing there will be doom.

They like to refer to the Old Testament where God smote people for not being righteous..so they try to stop anyone who is not Godly in their view.

Some of the rights religious leaders at first said the World Trade Towers were struck because the US was allowing people to be ungodly ( by allowing homosexuality and abortion etc.)

#156 David

The children are exposed to many ideas and asked to make decisions for themselves. That means they have to think and learn for themselves...a good basis for developing intelligence. There is no dogma in the Unitarian religion...there are principles based in humanism.

Complain about this comment
158. At 9:54pm on 10 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
157 bethpa

Interesting point about "old Testament smiting" from the religious right.

I was always lead to understand that (for Christians) Jesus brought a "New" testament with forgivness, other cheeks, meek inheriting stuff etc (possibly even cheesemakers. I was at the back and couldn't hear too well).

Still perhaps it explains the support for Israel....

Complain about this comment
159. At 10:28pm on 10 Jan 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#157. bethpa: "a good basis for developing intelligence."

Can intelligence really be developed? I would have thought it intrinsic.

Complain about this comment
160. At 11:04pm on 10 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
#159 DC

Can intelligence really be developed? I would have thought it intrinsic.

I always thought that intelligence, well IQ anyway, to be a false concept invented by others to convince the rest that they should rule.

IMO it doesn't matter how much 'intelligence' one has, but what one does with it what counts.

Complain about this comment
161. At 11:13pm on 10 Jan 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
Again, on the Catholic issue, we are talking about America here, not the conflicts between Ireland and the UK. From some of these postings, it seems that it is not Catholics who are brainwashed, but it is some of you sad European Protestants who have been brainwashed to believe all the horror stories about Catholics that never happened or happened centuries ago.

Yall are letting your bigotry get in the way of sound judgment. Let’s face some facts shall we.
The Da Vinci Code is not real.
Catholics do not aspire to topple the US gov.
Catholics do not worship Mary, we ask her to be our wing man, if you will, when we pray to God/Jesus.
Catholic Priests do not tell their congregations who to vote for and anyone who believes so probably has not bothered to sit through a full homily.

And ask yourselves this question honestly, why is it that Catholics must water-down their beliefs to be accepted?

Might it all possibly be ancient propaganda from the founder of the Church of England who broke from the Catholic Church so he could divorce and murder his many wives?

The point is, this old world topic is unfit for a discussion about America where, for the most part, this issue has been resolved. And as for John Kerry, he lost because he stiff as a board and a New England Elitist, not because he was Catholic.

Complain about this comment
162. At 11:25pm on 10 Jan 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
158 on the New Testament.

Yes, that is correct, but Jesus did not write any of it; the Apostles and many other later religious leaders wrote it down from oral traditions, then to Greek, then to Latin, etc.
That is the reason for the two versions of the Creed and the fact that many gospels were left out of the original Bible. It is probable that much was lost in translation over time, but we make do with what we have. At least there are longstanding Rituals and Traditions to back it all up.

Complain about this comment
163. At 00:22am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
#161 BienvenueEn Louisiana

So many examples to chose from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/

Priest: No communion for Obama supporters
Priest says it's because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion

""Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein."

Complain about this comment
164. At 00:23am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
David

Intelligence is a combination of environment and genes...imo..and can be encouraged or discouraged...The SAT tests abilities in areas that are learned n school..and are not IQ tests.

Complain about this comment
165. At 00:24am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
RomeStu

When the leaders of a Christian religion concentrate on the passages of the Old Testament I think that says something about them...Christian theology from the New Testament easily is in support of pacifism. The Old Testament had many wars...

Complain about this comment
166. At 00:25am on 11 Jan 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
"For a while Al Queda was blamed for the antrax attacks.

Of course Al Queda is interested in attacking liberals in America (not)

Who would be interested in attacking American liberals? (answer that imo and you will be led to the people behind the attack and its not foreigners)"

This is a fantastically insulting and offensive post, and an example of anti-Americanism at its crudest. The terrible thing is that it is all done in the name of self-conscious "enlightened' thinking.

The idea of defending Al Qaeda should repel any decent person. the idea that they are specifically targeting only conservative Americans is a bizarre fantasy.

These weird conspiracy theories proliferate on the internet, and nothing can stop them. But as a New Yorker born and bred I can at least tell you how shocking it is to read this.

Complain about this comment
167. At 00:26am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2008/10/catholic-priest-preaches-vote-no-on.html

Catholic priest preaches vote NO on Prop 8

"Father Geoffrey Farrow of the Saint Paul Newman Center in northeast Fresno shocked parishioners Sunday morning when he came out against Proposition 8, an initiative that would eliminate the right for same sex couples to marry in California."

Complain about this comment
168. At 00:33am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
http://www.redcounty.com/national/2008/12/second-catholic-priest-calls-f/

"It is heartening to see many leaders in the Catholic Church starting to take a strong stand in holding elected officials who claim to be Catholic accountable for their public policy stances. And now we're seeing Catholic leaders starting to hold average parishioners accountable for how they exercise their vote."

........................................

People in the Catholic Church are interfering in political issues by telling parishioners that voting for Obama means you have to make a confession and do penance.

The Catholic Church is heavily into politics and should lose its tax free status.

Complain about this comment
169. At 00:54am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
TimothyR444

Well I am also born and bred in NY and I am the wife of a physicist. ..who is funded by the government and has worked at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. And I am angry that the FBI went after a scientist with so little evidence!

I doubt it was Al Queda because it was the Ames strain of anthrax..which means the anthrax was developed in AMERICA!!!!

And I used the post office that was shut down in Princeton because of that anthrax. I know the people who worked there!!!!

How dare you call me anti American!!!!! Who are you to say something like that?

Complain about this comment
170. At 01:02am on 11 Jan 2009, SunshinePlus wrote:
RE: #11
Andy Frost

The statement, "We don't have an empire" and we have not made an attempt at a "far flung empire", etc.
The Pre-emptive Strike Resolution given solely to President Bush for what we now know was granted under false information provided by the administration, was an overt attempt at empire building. We have spent enough money in this "occupation" to bankrupt our Treasury and, unknown to the majority of the American citizens have constructed the largest most expensive Embassy compound in the world in Baghdad.

Complain about this comment
171. At 01:51am on 11 Jan 2009, ChangeOfState wrote:
The only rational argument for a nation state's holding and using power is to guarantee the quality of life of its citizens. America's overzealous and wrong-headed projection of power in military terms has had the opposite effect. Arrogating to itself (or being manoeuvred by its cynical "friends" into) the role of Policeman of the World has driven it to bankruptcy and caused a catastrophic diminishing of its moral stature in the world.

Because of the staggering costs associated with the role, this once mighty country has neglected the two things that would have increased its commonweal: building and maintaining a world class infrastructure (inclusive of a pristine natural environment) and nurturing its human capital through education, universal health care, etc. The sad effects of not having done so are there for all to see.

It can only be hoped that, now that it's on the brink of bankruptcy, the US will see that it has lay down the World Policeman role. Specifically, it must walk away from its unlimited and no-longer-affordable security guarantees to Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, etc. If some in those countries argue that America must keep its promises, the only possible rejoinder is that the US can no longer afford to keep those promises. The jig is up and, in any event, those societies are per capita as prosperous as the US and, in some cases, even more prosperous.

One can only hope that President Obama will realize that the days of Pax Americana are over. Let some other nation or that chimera the EU assume the role if it is eager and foolish enough to do so.

Freed of this insupportable burden, the US can repatriate its dollars and spend them on itself for a change -- as its "client" states have been merrily doing for some time now.

Complain about this comment
172. At 02:02am on 11 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
Bethpa,

Don't be alarmed by Timaaaay R444. He is a one trick pony, and gets his kicks by calling all and sundry out on some sort of "anti-American" charge.

Make him laugh, and he might go away.

Cheers,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
173. At 02:57am on 11 Jan 2009, bethpa wrote:
chronophobe

The fear is that people like him are in positions of power in the FBI. Anyone who questions them is anti American.

America..the world...is filled with weird people with all kinds of hidden agendas...And Bush has been manipulating the balance in government between the different groups towards the more conservative elements in America. Some of these people are very strange.

This is rarely reported in the news ..but more information is coming out about Nixon and Johnson .

Johnson thought Nixon was a traitor for encouraging North Vietnam to reject peace talks ..

so that Nixon would win the election against Humphrey.

Nixon promised the North Vietnamese a better deal with Nixon if they did not have peace talks until Nixon won.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20081225/OPINIONS/812250364

"The latest LBJ tapes reinforced longtime allegations, this time voiced by Johnson himself, that Nixon in 1968 had committed "treason," by encouraging through an intermediary South Vietnam's 11th-hour rejection of negotiations at peace talks in Paris to end the Vietnam War."

"The tapes recorded LBJ charging Nixon with interfering in the conduct of American foreign policy, by having word sent to the Saigon government leaders only days before the American election that they would get a better peace terms if they stayed away until Nixon won and became president."

...................................................

And I think Bush encouraged Israel to attack in the Gaza to make it more difficult for Obama. What a series of messes Bush has left behind..but I know that there will be Republicans who will blame Obama. These people are crazy...look at who they were willing to put in as vice president... Sarah Palin. And they are still talking about her as a leader for the Republican Party.

Complain about this comment
174. At 04:03am on 11 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
173 bethpa

"I think Bush encouraged Israel to attack in the Gaza." I truly hope you are wrong. That is too sad and tragic to contemplate.

What I always found very suspicious was the release of the Americans from the Tehran Embassy on (I believe) the same day as Reagan's inauguration. I find it hard to believe that the Iranians preferred Reagan over Carter.

I see on the CBC that Obama's first foreign visit will be to Canada. This is an American/Canadian tradition that was broken by Bush when he instead first went to Mexico.

As the majority of us are not fond of our PM perhaps we will have time to replace him before Mr. Obama arrives. Someone who more accurately represents Canada. We live in hope.

Complain about this comment
175. At 04:04am on 11 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
Bethpa,

Oh, don't worry too much about Timaaay. He is a regular who works his standard anti-American line at every opportunity. After you've seen it 3 times it's actually quite funny.

As to the rest, the good news is, I guess, that Mr. Felt felt (ha ha) it his duty to reveal the dirty deeds of your corrupt President.

Nixon was disgraced, and one major contributor to his downfall was an FBI agent, who was able to talk to a free press. This gives me some hope.

Now, if you want to be outraged and disgusted by things that are happening in the USA right now, have a look at this. Very disturbing footage of a young black man being shot, for no good reason, by BART security personnel. Is this making the national news down there? Not a word of it here.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
176. At 05:59am on 11 Jan 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
chronophobe:

"Don't be alarmed by Timaaaay R444. He is a one trick pony, and gets his kicks by calling all and sundry out on some sort of "anti-American" charge.

Make him laugh, and he might go away. "

Not likely, pinko. But you can hope.

Someone has to interfere with the excruciating political correctness of so many of these conversations and provide a different view.

And oh yes, I do indeed call anti-Americanism what it is, however unpleasant that may be.

Complain about this comment
177. At 06:03am on 11 Jan 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
chronophobe:

Oh, don't worry too much about Timaaay. He is a regular who works his standard anti-American line at every opportunity. After you've seen it 3 times it's actually quite funny.

Ah! Apparently my observations and responses have left their mark if you have to warn the same poster with patronizing remarks about me twice!

I am hardly a regular. I haven't been here in five weeks.

There should be room for my views in your world. The world is larger than the politically correct status quo.

Complain about this comment
178. At 06:19am on 11 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
161. BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:

"Might it all possibly be ancient propaganda from the founder of the Church of England who broke from the Catholic Church so he could divorce and murder his many wives"

I think Luther and Calvin may have had rather more to do with the "ancient propaganda" (500 years is ancient?) as you term it.

"The point is, this old world topic is unfit for a discussion about America where, for the most part, this issue has been resolved."

It has? Politics seems to be getting mixed up with religion an awful lot more in the New World than the Old; and btw, Henry VIII's actions in the old one had nothing much to do with religion and a lot to do with politics, and not that much changed in the forms of observance until Edward VI.

Complain about this comment
179. At 06:41am on 11 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
151 Bethpa that was what I was getting at.

148 I was recognising the catholic recognition of the Mother.
Bit of a pagan if anything.;)

Complain about this comment
180. At 07:08am on 11 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
177 TimothyR444 wrote:

"I am hardly a regular. I haven't been here in five weeks."

Ah. You may have missed something. See below.

"There should be room for my views in your world."

But not for squirrels'? (Who, by the way have responded in another thread.)

Complain about this comment
181. At 1:47pm on 11 Jan 2009, RomeStu wrote:
142 bethpa wrote:
"Not everyone who supported the IRA was a terrorist...
It seems possible for organizations that start out with terrorist factions to move over into being political and losing their terrorist origins.
(The British mistreated the Irish during the famines.)"

Of course you are correct that not all IRA supporters were terrorists. I never said that.
Many catholics supported the IRA in principle and many protestants supported the protestant para-military groups (who were also terrorists).

People who supported the AIMS of the IRA (united Ireland) were not terrorists. Anyone who supported it financially or practically was funding or abetting terrorism.

You actually make my point for me in a way, since I have consistently stated that through dialogue and education will advances be made in Israel/Palestine and on a broader scale with the muslim world in general, as was eventually the case in Northern Ireland.

To use an example from the Irish situation, once the British Government stopped using internment, and talks began, then the popular support for terrorist acts declined as most normal people saw further violence as counter-productive.

Most people wanted peace .... and I believe that this is also the case in other situations worldwide.
It is the ignorance, misinformation and fundamentalist dogma (on both sides) that we must fight ... not regress to this "eye for an eye" or "he started it" reactionary posturing that is causing so much grief today.

Complain about this comment
182. At 4:35pm on 11 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
re: 177 Timaaay

Ah! Apparently my observations and responses have left their mark if you have to warn the same poster with patronizing remarks about me twice!

Regarding my repetitiveness, that was sloppy of me. Sorry.

As to my patronizing remarks, I think I may have mistaken you for another poster who cries "anti-American" at every chance, but seems to have a better sense of humour about it. Or maybe not. It's hard to tell the difference between Spork and Spam.

Now, as to your rant against Bethpa, in 166, it is just rubbish. Why shouldn't she be able to question the source of the anthrax without you jumping up and down and accusing her of being "anti-American?" Are you in possession of some evidence that al-Queda is indeed the source of the attack?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
183. At 7:25pm on 11 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
182
177

last checked there was timmmaaayyy.rabid anti anti american.

and then there is the reasoned and very sensible replies from our Tim in ohio.

177 You are Timmaaayyy .

Sorry I should know.

Complain about this comment
184. At 9:26pm on 11 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
happyjack,

Never, ever, ever could I mistake Timmmmaaaayy (I forgot the "mmm" previously) for Tim in Ohio.

Chalk and cheese, as WMA would say.

Spork and Spam would be Timmmaaay and, say, RWBennet and the like.

Cheers,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
185. At 00:25am on 12 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
174 timewaitafornoman
Iranian preference for Reagan over Carter had nothing to do with them releasing the Americans hostages. They simply recognized that a well-meaning, vacant-eyed, gutless wonder had been president of the U.S. for four years and Reagan would hammer them one way or another if they didn't release the hostages.

Who "more accurately represents Canada" right now? A useless twit like Jack Layton, or the totally inept Stephane Dion? Right now Canada hasn't got anyone who is startling. And as much as Canadians like to ridicule Bush, the country has had its share of pure crud as leader, in recent years not least the totally unprincipled P.M. Jean Chretien, a total stranger to the truth who specialized in making some remarkably stupid statements and reneged on promises. Had he been an American president he would have been impeached for his shady dealings, but in Canada with it lack of checks on the conduct of those in power he got away with his general dishonesty, mis-use of public funds among other things. Talk about 'pork'! And talk about low-life in power, he made an artform of it!

Complain about this comment
186. At 03:34am on 12 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
re: 185 robloop

Do try to keep up, dear Sir. Stephan Dion is long gone. Michael Ignatieff is the next PM apparent.

Dare I suggest you're not gonna like him? I hope I'm wrong.

Needless to say, I'm thrilled about the prospect of him as the next PM.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
187. At 03:35am on 12 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
re: 185 robloop

Do try to keep up, dear Sir. Stephan Dion is long gone. Michael Ignatieff is the next PM apparent.

Needless to say, I'm thrilled about the prospect of him as the next PM.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
188. At 03:38am on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
185 robloop

You come across as such an angry person.

Americans have got the monopoly on "ridiculing" (your word) Bush as is their right. If you are referring to my comment that Bush broke with tradition, he did and it was an insult to the Canada. We did not let it bother us. When he threatened to cancel his official visit because we refused to go to Iraq, our fingers were crossed that he would as we were concerned about the reception he would receive here. He did. Thousands protesting his visit is not something we wanted the world to see.
I only stated a fact.

Generally American Presidents, Republican or Democrat are extremely warmly welcomed. They are our friends and neighbours and do not normally resort to threatening us!

I do not believe it was a coincidence nor that the Iranians were "running scared" after the election of Ronald Reagan. Where is the resident Iran expert to offer an opinion?

You made no comment on Bethpa's, "I think Bush encouraged Israel to attack in the Gaza." That is more troubling then something that happened close to thirty years ago.

I do not like PM Harper as is my right as a Canadian. He does not represent my values.

I'm not sure what you have against Jean Chrétien. Nor do I know what "shady dealings" you are talking about. I can assure you he would never have been impeached. Canadians had many opportunities to vote him out of office. We declined the offer for over ten years.

PM Chrétien and Finance Minister Martin pulled Canada out of the downward spiral that eight years of Mulroney had left us in.

"Canada hasn't got anyone who is startling." I take it then that you personally know every Canadian. That means you must know me but do not consider me startling! Or what about chronophobe? Not startling?

Complain about this comment
189. At 03:53am on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
186 chronophobe

Went to your link. Don't ya just love Quebecers? Of which I am one - maybe even startling - I'll have to ask around.

Complain about this comment
190. At 04:23am on 12 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
Sorry about the double post above. I was fighting with the HTML parser, and didn't know it.

timewaits,

I hope the Iggy love in Quebec lasts. I'm surprised that Harper is doing so well in Ont.!

Cheers,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
191. At 04:43am on 12 Jan 2009, british-ish wrote:
187.chronophobe wrote:

"re: 185 robloop

Do try to keep up, dear Sir. Stephan Dion is long gone. Michael Ignatieff is the next PM apparent."

Oh good. We know him here from late night arts programmes on the telly, not politics, though. (It is the same guy, isn't it?)

Hope he doesn't fall victim to dirty tricks, though, as intellectuals in politics are often prone to. Harper doesn't seem like a very nice guy to me.

Complain about this comment
192. At 04:46am on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
190 chronophobe

"Harper is doing so well in Ont.!" You will have to work on that.

Just as long as he doesn't make a major mistake, it will. You know this is a very liberal Province. We probably have Harper to thank for the reversal. French Quebecers were very insulted and English very angered by his remarks.

I'm off - nite!

Complain about this comment
193. At 04:57am on 12 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
188 timewaitsfornoman
Actually, regardless of how I sometimes appear, I'm not the "angry person" you think, and get a good laugh from many blogs whether I agree with the sentiments or not. But I can be blunt.
As I recall, it was not only Canada's refusal to participate in Iraq and the threat of protests that decided against Bush's visit to Ottawa, it was also thought that he would not get a courteous reception in parliament, not least from Jack Layton's mob.
I saw Bethpa's comment about Bush encouraging Israel to attack Gaza and took it with a grain of salt, because I don't believe Israel needed any U.S urging to respond to rockets and mortars attacks that had gone on for months.
I'm not and wouldn't dispute your right to dislike Harper. I'm not so sure I'd disagree with you, but your problem right now is that you don't have anyone in the wing who is better material.
Okay, I won't use the word "startling" and rather use "remarkable" - but it makes no difference, you don't have anyone in waiting who even nearly meets that description. And please, have you forgotten so quickly? Chretien was a shabby excuse for a Canadian P.M.
Come on now, it's silly to ask if I know every Canadian. I know enough and the country enough, to know its good side as well as the bad, and the fact is that it has a dearth of leadership.

187 For Chronophobe's sake right here, I will add that Ignatief is a sad sack option - pathetic! I've read and heard enough to know that he is an indecisive clot with pliable 'principles' - if he truly has any!
Be truthful now, Stephane Dion is only shortly gone and the Liberals are in a bad way if Ignatief is the only joker they can scrounge up. They are also badly in debt.

Complain about this comment
194. At 09:45am on 12 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
#186 Chrono
#193 Robloop

Sorry Pinko, I can't stand Michael Ignatief either. He strikes me as intellectually smug with his head up his backside. I hope you like the sound of his voice because he does.

Complain about this comment
195. At 1:24pm on 12 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
193 timewaitsfornoman
Your blog name is quite good. It's something my mom used to say to my late wife who, while a good person, often had an approach of 'Tomorrow's another day'.
Just before I get shot down in flames, yes I know that Jack Layton was not in Ottawa when Bush sent troops into Iraq, but I referred to his NDP doughbrains.

194 Dceilar
To be honest I don't know what Ignatief's voice sounds like, but re his intellectual smugness I believe you are right - and your view of the position of his head also sounds about right! Just imagine his reaction to a crisis, he'd be like a chicken without a head!
Worst of all is his not being able to make up his mind about where he stands on issues. It seems to depend on what will serve him best, which tells you he doesn't have strong 'convictions' about most things - or anything.

Complain about this comment
196. At 3:36pm on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
193/4 robloop dceilar

I am not a supporter of Jack Layton and the NDP nor have I formed an opinion about Michael Ignatieff. I believe him to be sincere but time will tell.

It bothers me that Stephen Harper is out in the world speaking on behalf of Canadians as if he has majority support for his views on how Canada should be "changed." He does not. Therefore I prefer he not be our representative to welcome President Obama to our frozen shores.

Millions of Americans must feel the same way about George Bush. They have my sympathy as they had to endure him for eight years. The majority are probably unaware of how slighted Canadians were. And to what purpose? If he had followed tradition the official visit would have been well out of the way before 911 and this would not have happened. We invited our new neighbour over for a cup of tea and he declined the offer. It was not a good start to the relationship.

I could not resist the jab about knowing all Canadians in response to your tirade about Jean Chretien. You appear more upset about him than I am about Harper.

Complain about this comment
197. At 3:48pm on 12 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
185. At 00:25am on 12 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
174 timewaitafornoman
Iranian preference for Reagan over Carter had nothing to do with them releasing the Americans hostages. They simply recognized that a well-meaning, vacant-eyed, gutless wonder had been president of the U.S. for four years and Reagan would hammer them one way or another if they didn't release the hostages.

and there was absolutely no agreement between Iran and Reagent, what so ever , in fact this post did not happen.

Complain about this comment
198. At 4:15pm on 12 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
#197 Happy

and there was absolutely no agreement between Iran and Reagent, what so ever , in fact this post did not happen.

And I didn't read it. I averted my eyes!

Complain about this comment
199. At 4:18pm on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
197 happylaze

In my ignorance that is what I believe. Do you think "Machiavellian" is going too far?

Complain about this comment
200. At 4:24pm on 12 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
All of the veneration of Mary has come from tradition rather than what is in the New Testament.

True
The catholic church is a lot earlier than the Protestant Church which was reacting to Catholics. Where as the Catholics were up against some pretty powerful Gods out there and the Mother was one if not the Biggest.
So realising where they were, they decided to include the Mother in worship, broaden the base and make this new religion acceptable .

The Protestant Church gave no credence to the Mother and still do not in terms of worship. They allow women to worship a man but not a man to worship a woman .

Just seems sexist in a way.
As does not allowing women priests in the catholic church.

I as would be interested i reading what Mary magdalen wrote (bethpa).
And suspect it is true that she was silenced,as others were.

There are always negatives with all religions it seems and as such i try to look for the good bits. As a religion I am sure the bad bits are totally man created.

U Unitarians seem to have a decent handle on religion.

Complain about this comment
201. At 4:37pm on 12 Jan 2009, floridaRoberto62 wrote:
If the USA wants to be a dominant superpower, it should practice what it preaches. The US Elite of Republicans and Democrats are busy propping dictators such as Castro and Chavez as well as promoting genocide against the people of Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The US Elite cannot talk about freedom and democracy when they repress the Libertarians and Greens inside America. The US Elite cannot talk about freedom and democracy and promote a lifestyle which is detrimental to the world.

The US Elite cannot talk about immigration when Ramos and Compean [two immigration officials arrested for doing their job] do not receive a Presidential Pardon.

The world should attempt an embargo against the USA unless it changes its ways when it comes to human rights.

Complain about this comment
202. At 4:59pm on 12 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
#195 Robloop
#196 Time

I know him through the 'Late Show' (an arts TV programme for arty farties on the BBC), and his column in the Independent newspaper. He's arrogant enough to actually believe he can take on professional orators at their own game. I remember Christopher Hitchens trying the same thing in a debate with 'Gorgeous' George Galloway. You may not agree with the latter's politics, but he's a professional orator (one of the best imo) and he beat the hack hands down.

Complain about this comment
203. At 5:21pm on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
202 dceilar

Then you know more about him than I do. All I ask is that he oust Harper. The oration part we can deal with later!

He didn't happen to give any hints on what he would do as a PM did he? As far as I know he doesn't drink as much as Hitchens so that's a point in his favour. His ability to speak Russian might come in handy - or not. We will wait to have Putin make up our minds about that. Whatever he says will be our opinion on the topic!

And what were you doing watching the Late Show?

Complain about this comment
204. At 5:50pm on 12 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
201 floridaRoberto62

Oh boy! Those are some pretty strong views. Not that I totally disagree, but...

I'm presuming you live in Florida. Perhaps you should investigate emigration for the sake of your health. There are still some fairly peaceful places to live in this world.

Or maybe you are working hard to make some changes in America. In that case I applaud you. You have a long row to hoe. Have your blood pressure checked regularly to make sure you are around to see them. I mean that sincerely.

Complain about this comment
205. At 6:10pm on 12 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
201 Floridian with good ethics

well said.

Especially that bit about an embargo.

Though Mostly Erroneous will probably tell you how america will survive better than others, because we are americans and that is good enough because they are all fools and not very smart. because if it comes down to it they are all no as gifted as they would be if they were from america by chance.especially if they happen to be him.

He has Issues with France cause they kicked him out, and when he went to Canada they were rude to him(surprise surprise)so no one in Canada can do anything right either.

But his heart is in the wrong place so forgive him.

Complain about this comment
206. At 6:20pm on 12 Jan 2009, happylaze wrote:
198 no you didn't. because nothing to see cannot be averted from;)

to our northern brethren and sistern

And I don't care about Dion as long as she does not sing;)

Complain about this comment
207. At 02:34am on 13 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
Picking up the fag end, again, but ...

About Ignatieff,

I honestly have never paid much attention to his TV presence, which maybe I should have, seeing as he is now trying to be elected.

I know him as a writer, and as a lecturer. In both those formats he is displays a powerful, supple intellect, and a great deal of compassion.

I hope he can translate those qualities into the political arena.

BTW, he is no intellectual poseur or wanna be. Check out his bibliography.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
208. At 11:18am on 13 Jan 2009, dceilar wrote:
#207 Pinko

We'll give him a chance then. I wonder if he still supports the invasion of Iraq.

Complain about this comment
209. At 2:50pm on 13 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
207 chronophobe
Evidently Ignatief should have remained a writer and a lecturer.

203 timewaitsfornoman
Why on earth would you want Ignatief, a man who displays no decision-making ability and no real leadership qualities, to oust Harper?
Is this just because Harper is a
'conservative' - of sorts - and leader of the Conservative Party which you don't like, or is it a case of the old Canadian Liberal Party attitude that 'we are the ruling party' and even if a complete dope, our guy is best? Can you imagine, in a democracy, a party actually being so arrogant as to regard itself 'the ruling party'! Just think about it.
It ain't pretty.

Complain about this comment
210. At 3:35pm on 13 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
208 dceilar

"still supports the invasion of Iraq." No he does not. Although whether he was sincere or saying so for political gain, I do not know. I prefer to believe him.

203 robloop

"a man who displays no decision-making ability and no real leadership qualities" Harper may have the qualities you list, but he is leading Canada down a path the majority of us do not want to go. It is my right in a democracy, which I firmly believe in, to support an opposing view.

I am a Liberal. Why would I not want the Liberal Party to be the government? If they can produce a Leader that the country (House of Commons) supports - he leads. That is democracy.

Also since you seem to be well informed about Canada, Harper's negative comments about some of his fellow Canadians is not the mark of a good leader. It sounds to me that you are the one who would support anyone - just as long as they are Conservative. And, in your country you may do so. Move to Canada if you wish to influence our politics.

Complain about this comment
211. At 5:08pm on 13 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
210 timewaitsfornoman
Now, now, your last paragraph 'sounded' downright testy. And you are wrong about me supporting "anyone - just as long as they are Conservative", but it seems that you would support a Liberal that way.
Another thing, you don't mind commenting on things in another country, not least George Bush, so in fairness be prepared to accept comments about your own country.
I will say that democracy is more than a vote and 'producing a leader who the country supports', it also means protecting freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom to hold differing and opposing views, something that Canada's Human Rights Commissions, increasingly, do not permit, and about which Canada's political leaders do nothing, Harper included. Maybe his party will force his hand, but you can almost count on a Liberal leader doing nothing about it.
About this, yes, I read about the Mark Stein/MacLean's magazine fight and victory over these petty tyrants of the Human Rights Commissions. A good victory, but a circumstance that does not bode well for Canadian democracy.

Complain about this comment
212. At 6:09pm on 13 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
211 robloop

I did not say, "Keep out of our affairs." But instead, "Move to Canada if you wish to influence our politics." A totally different statement. I invited you to join. Although why I would be so generous to someone who comes across as a Conservative voter, I do not know. A generosity of spirit perhaps! Why should you be denied the right to freeze through the winter along with the rest of us.

I said nothing about George Bush that would equate with your statements regarding Jean Chretien and Michael Ignatieff. As I recall I only stated a fact. I do not feel it is my place to be openly critical of another country's democratically elected leader. What I say in the privacy of my own home is a different matter. I do believe I have a right to complain that he had a negative impact on US Canadian relations. This led to a rise of Anti-Americanism (Bush-ism) in Canada which is not healthy and I lay the blame on his doorstep. Since his actions affected the world, I believe we are all entitled to an opinion. Should you wish to criticize Harper on his lack of concern for the environment which affects the world - (maybe even your part of it) I would completely understand and agree.

You make such wide sweeping statements. But I do appreciate your concern for democracy in Canada.

Complain about this comment
213. At 11:06pm on 13 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
212 timewaitsfornoman
Thanks for your warm invitation to join you, and for your 'generous' spirit. Not a good time of the year for Quebec unless happy to freeze my tail! I've been to Quebec City on three occasions, once during the winter carnavale. Fun, scenic, interesting city, but, like John Keats's 'St Agnes Eve', "bitter chill it was"!
I'm going to stop teasing you. Canadians make themselves vulnerable by worrying about what other's think of their country. Often after five minutes there you're asked what you think of the country. I know Canada well, have travelled it widely, once on my own drove from Vancouver to Montreal, and am a UBC graduate. So in all honesty I didn't make sweeping statements. The H.R. Commissions are the pain I described - and thanks for giving me a good chuckle over your comments about 'appreciating my "concern for democracy in Canada".

Complain about this comment
214. At 01:34am on 14 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
215. At 01:45am on 14 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
re: 209 Robloop Evidently Ignatief should have remained a writer and a lecturer.

That's a bit glib. I think it is quite reasonable to question how the talents of an academic will translate into the skills needed by a politician, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss Ignatieff's potential out of hand.

Read, if you will, the NYT piece linked to above, where he addresses this issue (and the questions of principle, decisiveness, and leadership with which you are also concered) at some length.

Then tell me what you think.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

Complain about this comment
216. At 02:47am on 14 Jan 2009, chronophobe wrote:
Try, try again.

re 208 deceiler, 210 timewaitsnot:

If you like, you can read his mea culpa for the poor judgment on Iraq in the NY Times
here. It's a good piece, and gives a taste of his style of thinking and rhetoric.

A sample, if I may:

I made some of these mistakes and then a few of my own. The lesson I draw for the future is to be less influenced by the passions of people I admire — Iraqi exiles, for example — and to be less swayed by my emotions. I went to northern Iraq in 1992. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds. From that moment forward, I believed he had to go. My convictions had all the authority of personal experience, but for that very reason, I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror? I should have known that emotions in politics, as in life, tend to be self-justifying and in matters of ultimate political judgment, nothing, not even your own feelings, should be held immune from the burden of justification through cross-examination and argument.

Yours,
Canadian Pinko

PS, Robloop, this is the link. First try the quote was too long, I guess.

Complain about this comment
217. At 03:41am on 14 Jan 2009, robloop wrote:
216 Chronophobe
Thanks, I read both links, the last too quickly, so I'll run off and read again. There is no doubting his intellectual credentials, but the question is whether it is better suited to teaching and writing than political leadership. My impression thus far is that he is wired for the former, but not for the latter. He writes interestingly, referring to what others have said, Edmund Burke among others, but will he over-analyze and dither when confronted by an issue or an emergency - when he doesn't have someone else's wit or wisdom upon which to call? I wish I could recall an event I read about a year or two back when he came across as just sadly indecisive. I'm not trying to be hard on the man, but in all honesty he has not appeared to possess the qualities of a good, decisive, political leader in a Reagan or Thatcher mold, with strong convictions. I'm not saying you had to like them or their policies, but they mostly knew where they were going and my impression is that he is not certain.
The less influenced by Bob Rae he was, or is, the better!

Complain about this comment
218. At 04:42am on 14 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
213 robloop

I do not worry about what others think of Canada because it is what I think that is important to me. (Harper out in the world is becoming a concern though.) Hearing a compliment from an outsider (even if we have to 'fish' for one) is meaningful to us as we believe we are often worthy of praise.

Our inferiority complex comes from living next door to the States. Other than Mexico (different for obvious reasons), there is no one else in the world who lives a similar experience. We are the younger sibling shouting, "Look at me, look at me!" When no one bothers to turn around, we survive and carry on.

I am fiercely proud of being Canadian. I can now sleep more soundly at night knowing you are keeping an eye on our human rights issues and will gladly point out to us the error of our ways. Although we will not guarantee to resolve them to your satisfaction we do appreciate your concern. You seem to be a proponent of negative attention and given a choice, we prefer positive. But... at least you're paying attention!!

216 chronophobe

I had already read the article and was heartened to hear the reasons for his reversal on the invasion of Iraq. I found his explanation believable. Since I was not in the market for a warmonger, I became more positive about him becoming leader.

Complain about this comment
219. At 03:00am on 24 Jan 2009, nessie1945 wrote:
As the article says, "Yet there are reasons for optimism: Barack Obama's presidency could usher in an era of renewed American global leadership."

Yes. We will rebuild. Better. Stronger. Faster.*

It'll take a bit more than Six Million Dollar(s), man, but with intelligent leadership, we'll get there.

*For any lucky person who's kids didn't sit raptly through the old Six Million Dollar Man series, the words won't evoke the old days but the idea remains.

We shall overcome.

Complain about this comment
220. At 03:02am on 24 Jan 2009, nessie1945 wrote:
Dear timewaits, I love Canada - except for the whole seal massacre thing. What a beautiful place, eh?

Complain about this comment
221. At 1:43pm on 24 Jan 2009, everyoneiscrazy wrote:
Re 161.

Catholic Priests do not tell their congregations who to vote for and anyone who believes so probably has not bothered to sit through a full homily.

Not a lie but not the tructh either. As a former catholic in that messed up bastion of the religion, Ireland, i have seen and heard with my own eyes, as well as accounts from others that priests will indicate a definite preference for one candidate over an other and in some extreme cases instruct good catholics not to vote for certain people.

So you are right they won't tell you who to vote for but the sure have no problem telling you who not to vote for.

Complain about this comment
222. At 1:51pm on 24 Jan 2009, everyoneiscrazy wrote:
As for the Irish issue the famine was only one of the many, many injustices perpetrated against the irish by the english. The steady, mechanical erosion of the use of our language and our religion punishible by death if caught is another genocidical measure taken against us.

However it was a long time ago and as such it shouldn't be forgotten but neither should it have any modern relevance. I.e. get over it!

also, and i'm not trying to spark anything here but it is entirely possible that the freedom fighthers and founding fathers of america would have been seen as rebelious, treasonous and if the term had been coined back then terrorists. It was with the IRB (precurser to the IRA) where it's general Michael collins, most wanted man in the empire at the time waqs aluded as a freedom fighter by the Irish (still is) and as a traitor and a terrorist at the time by the english.

Complain about this comment
223. At 4:07pm on 24 Jan 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:
nessie1945

"What a beautiful place, eh?" Well done! Perfect placement of "eh?" You will fit right in.

Complain about this comment
224. At 07:40am on 27 Jan 2009, democraticOath wrote:
(in a better world...)

Is anyone in this forum aware that American and Indian are racist terms?

(let's express that a little louder so people with sore eyeballs won't miss it)

IS ANYONE IN THIS FORUM AWARE THAT "AMERICAN" AND "INDIAN" ARE RACIST TERMS.

Complain about this comment
225. At 10:35am on 27 Jan 2009, democraticOath wrote:
Most certainly, America’s power lives on; but not in any shape or quality associated with the hate-driven racism expressed in 99.6% of the posts in this forum. Do you Caucasians ever think of the American residents of your colonial encampments, nations like United States, Mexico and Canada? The racism inherent in the use of "American" and "Indian" by colonials to describe themselves and the people they have criminally displaced is obvious. The fact that many Americans pumped out of colonial schools call themselves Indians only further enhances your confusion about who you are.

For the European occupier seeking a quick bank fix, I can only advise all that you know India in the coming century will do far more to line your pockets than the U.S. with none of the headache. But please ... please do not leave it at that and abandon North America.

The problem is not simply a contemporaneous set of incorrect assumptions that might not matter so much if the speaker isn't thinking about what is being said. Comparing Obama and the U.S. war machine to Hitler is nonsensical. The U.S. has criminally occupied the Americas and assaulted Americans and their property for six centuries. That assault includes the genocide of 18 million and mass incarceration that makes Hitler an amateur. Now that colony from hell is colonizing.

The extent to which the parent and other siblings are assisting her to colonize is an unknown, but given the reflective nature of psychosis any involvement only compounds global human misery. Due to the increasing irrelevance of U.S. policy to parent Europe's logistic interests, around the globe European interests are increasingly poorly serviced. Yes, the U.S. is exporting its own brand of terror, but she is also suffering a cultural psychosis that has demonstrated in human settlement for at least 5 million years.

What is cultural psychosis?

At University one of our assignments was to find a survivable colonized population (a population removed from its original Earth environment and resettled in a new environment) with that resettlement taking less than 10,000 years. There are none.

Population that has survived into a transition phase (prolonged redefining development) is the only survivable human adaptation. If you want to find a survivable Caucasian population, you have North Central and Eastern Russia and Scandinavia, or for secure Asian populations look to China, India, the Asian Steppes and parts of the Americas not totally ransacked by Caucasian criminals.

Migration involves transition, colonization involves occupation. Static or static transitioned cultures are survivable. Criminal occupation is always terminal. From the lab, it is easy to isolate, define and label social sickness in a way that is useful to a world wishing to understand and help. Survivable populations coexist with their environments in a peaceful relationship with other cultures, and naturally, with their environments. Colonization is disruptive, conflicting, and highly destructive of resource.

Hitler was exploiting a Caucasian movement. In this epoch of human settlement, Caucasians are the population group most prone to propelling destructive colonial exploitation. The only connection between Hitler and Obama is that they are both expressing Caucasian colonization. That is a powerful connection, but its environment is not survivable. It is not a thing you can look at and say, “Look at that colapsing block of states over there! To avoid that we can do this, this, and this.” Psychosis defines a lonely end.

We use the term cultural psychosis to define this violent colonizing behavior, because it is both reflective and dynamic in its inevitable progress to self termination. For an understanding of reflective aspects of cultural psychosis, observe the hysterical distortions of community tearing Africa apart - destruction of Africa was augmented and likely ignited by slavery, which ultimately may make meaningful resolution impossible. Or observe Japan, thankfully grounded and returned to a healthy existence. For an example of the dynamic demonstration of cultural psychosis, read this post paying special attention to the U.S. attack on Palestine and the United Nations using it’s Israel colony, a reflective occupation.

The excessive prevalence of this terminal illness in the relatively young Caucasian population has a parallel in health care. We call it FAS or fetal alcohol syndrome. The suffering individual is hyperactive and disorganized from neonatal through to adult life. Survival even past the neonatal stage demands intensive intervention.

In behavioral science, we use the term cultural psychosis to describe the organic (deeply rooted) appearance of a cultural group as it prepares, launches and vanishes in a short hyper aggressive flurry. The suffering culture, in this case the United States, is actively colonizing and poorly focused on internal and external objectives, unable to create and manage peaceful relations. Like the FAS adult, the U.S. is more likely to criminally assault or needlessly disrupt every national entity it associates with.

In a clinical healthcare context, the suffering child culture needs to be immediately contained and treated. In the international context, the sick nation has lethally assaulted the United Nations. However, dismal that may seem, extend your creative imagination. The United States is one of dozens of colonies effected by Caucasian colonization beginning in the 1500's. Now that you understand the global environment that the U.S. culture is feeding on and feeding into, imagine being victimized by it. Now imagine watching it collapse and tearing apart your resource as it goes.

Was global colonization a boo-boo?

Assuming the lack of visible response to date to the destruction and murder of UN property and people, there is an international incapacity. The U.S. will continue incrementing toward a violent end. However, there is a window of opportunity. India is the textbook solution. Retract the colony and diversify the econopolitical interests through indigenous infrastructure.

If this cannot be done for the U.S. colony, it will perish, and without exception an extensive and large chuck of occupying, reflective, and occupied Earth population will vanish with it. That is life in this corner of the Milky Way.

What is culture?

Those who wish for anything more romantic and cozy in the current 'civilized' direction, try sit on the steps of the White House and hum mantras. If you can sit and hum without being arrested or shot, and if anything peaceful happens, let us know. It is comforting that real care exists. Care is an aspect of survivable culture too.

For those who think ignorance is the way out, without treatment, psychosis reaches a point where life ends. It is sometimes a treatable illness. Action must be taken. How do we fix a culture?

One must admire Russian restraint within the Caucasian homelands. Naturally, being born of the not yet resolved Caucasian urge to colonization, the U.S. is almost certain to disappear in a most unpleasant and violent circumstance. This is sad.

Especially for the millions of Americans who have suffered U.S. administration for so many centuries. Today, their core surviving populations are crowded into tiny impoverished reservations without access to justice to resolve the criminal occupation impacting their lives and culture.

Many, many more live outside reservations and are their indigenous aspirations and identity are ignored by governments that work to strip them of “Indian” status and conscript them to serve the colonial machine. They are forced to view themselves as Caucasians to survive.

I had always hoped occupying nations would appreciate and work to bolster and develop cultural resource: evidently I was misguided as far as North America is concerned. For example, internationally Canada exhibits the same colonial imperative as the U.S., and yet at home its concept of culture is as fine art, or “Indian” reservation community centers.

Personally, my American instinct does not include the urge to intervene in any way, when and where the assaults on the U.S. resume. Given a life-long U.S. intelligence association, that adjustment will hurt my soul. But that child has gone too far to correct itself in this environment. Helping would be like pouring gasoline down the throat of an alcoholic. For a better understanding of reckless Caucasian colonization, intelligently read Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Their writings describe very clearly the psychosis entangling today's Caucasian empire. Yes, they both use the term psychosis to describe the issue. For all of us not involved, wisdom says hands off is the most rational and healthy approach to life.

So, what is life in a criminal colonial jurisdiction like?

Where did that colonial administration put our abducted children? Ah, you are beginning to understand. I guess I've posted enough here for now. It is time to try and reach some old acquaintances in need of love and prayer.

June last year two senior women seated in a government building were assaulted by armed Canadian Customs Officers and put into intensive care. One of them has thankfully survived and was just released to her home after months of pumps, tubes and bare walls.

Enjoy your forum.
Try to avoid armed Caucasians in our Americas. They might not be wearing the right pair of eye glasses, and in any case are behaviorally challenged.

Love as always, an American who understands

Complain about this comment
226. At 11:26am on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
With regard to 'freedom' and 'democracy' the USA has always taken the moral high ground. Unfortnately its foreign policy has often been in cynical contradiction to these values. Maybe as the USA loses (or gives up) its economic and military dominance it can start to concentrate on setting the rest of the world a good example. It is time to realize that on the long road to true freedom and democracy, even the USA is only halfway there. In America all men are equal, they say. But that is a lie. There can be no real equality among men and women without some form of social and economic equality. Free market capitalism must go for humanity to progress.

Complain about this comment
227. At 11:37am on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"Like the Great Depression though, the US has a unique opportunity to come out greater than ever before, as a force for good, and as a force for change."
Let me remind you that in the end it took the Second World War to get out of the great depression. Let's hope we can find a somwhat saner solution this time.
Also it is questionable if the USA came out of that whole series of events as "a force for good." All too often the lofty ideals the US government claimed to defend went out the window in the confusion of the Cold War. I wouldn't want to count the numbber of people who have been tortured and murdered in Latin America to defend 'freedom' against 'communism' (the latter often nothing more than the desire of a particular people to decide its own political destiny instead of the one the USA had in mind for them, as in Chile.) From that perspective the American rhetoric has too often sounded hollow and cynical. Let's hope Obama can leave that arrogance behind him.

Complain about this comment
228. At 11:40am on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"We're the first superpower not to have imperial aspirations."
That what they taught you in school? American imperialism is different from the European imperialism that went before, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. See my previous post.

Complain about this comment
229. At 11:42am on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"It wouldn't hurt us to cut the Democracy spreading crap out for a while as well...when our Democracy is perfect, then we can lecture others on how to improve theirs!!"

Hear, hear. That goes for Western Europe as well.

Complain about this comment
230. At 11:54am on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"Turning a blind eye to the movement of large numbers of people across our borders, who do not share our culture, seeking to better their lot will not do us any favors."
If you want ot stray into ancient history, these migrations were not caused by the irresistable attraction of Rome, but by events in the countries where these people were coming from. Agreed, the Romans couldn't do much about the wave of belligerent horsemen from Asia that set that whole course of events in motion.
The same is happening today. These people are not really coming to the USA because they love America so much, but because the conditions in their own countries are so miserable. Their misery has actually probably largely been caused by the totally unwarranted faith in unregulated free markets to bring propserity to large numbers of people worldwide. Unlike the ancient Romans though the USA has the potential to influence these factors. Starting a worldwide education program would be a start, guaranteeing good and free education to all children, no matter how poor or depraved their parents are.

Complain about this comment
231. At 12:01pm on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"The economic and societal damage done by those wars (which were not of their own making) made maintaining the empire impossible."
Saying those wars were not of Britain's own making rather oversimplifies a very complicated polticial situation. One might argue that the first world war was caused by imperial ambitions of the continental states of Europe. Those ambitions were heavily fuelled by Britain acquiring an empire in the first place and not really caring what anybody else thought about it though.

Complain about this comment
232. At 12:40pm on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"Except I cannot think of any civilization which has persisted without being able to regulate the influx of alien cultures. Failure to be able to control the rate at which members of the alien culture arrive so that they can be assimilated will just as surely see the destruction of the civilization as if it atrophy, which seems to be Toynbee's view of how civilizations peter out."
Maybe as we are all on the way to one kind of "world civilization" or another this whole point is irrelevant. The fact that all of us are having this discussion makes our time different from all that went before. Lack of understanding stems mainly from lack of communication. At least in theory we are now more able to communicate than ever. At many more levels, too. We Europeans may sometimes disagree with some of the more irrational aspects of American life and vice versa, but the fact that we discuss them, forces us to think about them to come up with a response in the discussion. Which is never a bad thing.

Complain about this comment
233. At 1:28pm on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
democraticOath, as a "caucasian" (a meaningless adjective at best) I feel slightly racially abused by your post. It is true that white men have perpertrated many a crime over the centuries. That the USA was based not only on a Constitution which promised freedom for all but also on genocide and slavery is a painful fact that America hasn't really come to terms with yet. But don't forget that western culture is also the first in history that is actually capable of reflecting on its own shortcomings in a more or less objective manner. That is why we have been able to make any social progress at all over the last two centuries, however slow and painful the process may have been. Long live the scientific method! Now let's finally start to apply it to economics, because what they teach as the "science" of economics in universities is not scientific at all, merely an attempt at statistical justification of ideological beliefs. And it has been seriously holding us back for too long.

Complain about this comment
234. At 1:50pm on 27 Jan 2009, jimigorilla wrote:
"Al-Quaeda is the organisation that uses the poorly educated, easily indoctrinated youth as its footsoldiers. "
As a matter of fact many Al Qaeda members are highly trained professionals, starting with Osama bin Laden himself. But is is easier to assume that its followers are 'poorly educated' or 'easily indoctrinated'. 'Easily alienated' wouild be a better word maybe, but whose fault is that?

Complain about this comment
235. At 7:12pm on 28 Jan 2009, freeclench wrote:

Naah, the one-line paragraph that got Mr. Webb all worked up is, basically, nonsense.

Check out the CIA World Factbook (via Wikipedia) on population growth:

http://tinyurl.com/cptklp

The US is hovering at a replacement rate, on a par with England, China, Australia, France, Spain, and the lowlands.

Russia, most of Europe, and South Africa are dwindling.

Latin America and India are growing at a good clip.

But Africa and the Middle East through Arabia -- are exploding.

The future is Muslim.

-FC

ps - The reason portions of America has a population curve similar to a third-world country is that portions of America are kept in third-world conditions. We're not like you Europeans. We let the poor starve.

Complain about this comment
236. At 11:52am on 30 Jan 2009, lochraven wrote:
#60 britis_hit

"I don't, quite honestly, know whether to laugh or cry. I think I shall just hoot with derision instead."

And you do it very well and with such glee--sick
You should find yourself a hobby and stay out of trouble.

Complain about this comment
237. At 00:42am on 02 Feb 2009, Cwadsgo wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
238. At 01:30am on 03 Feb 2009, chivalrousmichelle wrote:
American Power must to live on Universal message of Peace. The Peacebuilding is an important point for the balance of all.
Sir Marco Pizzorno an important peacebuilder, International Humanitarian Law Istructor, professor,author... of Our days says that all things can to become better if we start to make better our mind, our life. Sir Marco Pizzorno is a genius, a peace fighter to diffusion of knowledge of human and humanitarian law for all
The only way to make all better is to change our style to think. We must to have more attention of little things.So America will change all things." Changing the style" .

Complain about this comment