One of the many reasons why I will never be nominated for anything that would require Senate review is that I don't think I could physically sit in a chair and have The Swimmer question me on my ethics.
todd
Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.
todd
It won't work the way you want it to. The "luxury" of freedom requires that the society be able to afford it. A broke society cannot afford the niceties of democracy because they are always one step ahead of starvation (Think: Modern Russia).
Note that desparately poor people are not usually first in line to fight for democratic revolution, or if they are it is largely ineffective - they're too busy trying to just survive and don't have the wealth and tools required to overthrow the established system. (Think: The French Revolution "by the people" that was unnecessarily violent, ended badly, and led to the establishment of something arguably worse than the monarchy). Rich people typically are too few in number to make much of a difference one way or the other though they can try and buy some improvement (which typically just leads to official corruption). It takes a critical mass of middle-class people to force issues of democracy and freedom in most cases. (Think: The American Revolution populated by farmers, merchants, traders, and wealthy aristocrats that tore off the shackles of one of the most powerful nations of its time.)
Terminating trade with China, if effective, would primarily impoverish their economy such that no effective liberal democratic reform would ever happen. But by trading with them, we encourage the formation of their emergent middle-class. Sooner or later, these people will throw off the shackles of an oppressive government.
IOW: Capitalism Precedes Durable Democracy (But the latter does not guarantee the former)
Democracy has to be earned by its participants - it cannot be bestowed by a 3rd party (no matter what the Neocons think). The most a 3rd party can ever do is create the environment in which Democracy can take hold - i.e., Remove impediments like Sadaam and the Taliban. But even so, the onus lies on the indigenous peoples to do this for themselves. The greatest fear I have about today's hostilities is not that we ought not to have done it (we did the right thing) but that our leadership (on
*both* sides of the polical spectrum) expect too much in the aftermath. We've done the heavy lifting, now it time for the Afghans and Iraqis to do what's needed for themselves.My other fear is that Western politicans of all stripes expect too much when they ask for "democracy" in the region. In the SOTN speech last night Bush said we had to accept that democracy would "look different" in the Middle East when accomplished. I agree, but I wonder just how "different" a democracy he (and all the other politicians) are actually willing to accept. The same holds true for China, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea and all of the other collectivist paradises around the world. As they democratize, it will not necessarily be the Western model and we may as well all get used to it.
Works for me. Add Egypt and Syria to the list.
i.e. Remove a totalitarian regime, but not if they're Chinese and there's a shitload of money to be made...
Removing them by force may well be impossible. It's an enormous country with considerable military resources. Moreover, unlike Iraq - where there were consistent examples of aid to terrorist groups and/or individuals - China has not thus far demonstrated any animus to the US nor have they done anything significant to destabilize the planet. It would be much harder to make the case for violent intervention there.
The Real World is always fraught with compromise. There is no way the West can be in the Democracy business for each and every nation that needs it. We have to pick and choose the greatest threats / greatest opportunities. I think most people who've watched the region agree that China is improving and there is light at the end of that tunnel. They thus do not need any Western "attention" at the moment. The path to Democracy has many paths, but China appears to be on the most durable one - economic growth. I say let it be for now and see what hapens.
I've watched Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, in interveiws, and on his cooking show. I've seen him do the Faith-healing fraud to raise money.
If you do not realize he is a cult leader then, as they say, you must have drunk the kool-aid.
What is Air-America? Sounds like it is worth checking out.
One presumes that is not one of the _primary_ reasons...
OK, *that* was funny ...
Are you aware of how much of your federal debt they own?
How is that animus? Floating bonds to raise capital is a normal practice among all major governments and business concerns. It is an expression of trust on the part of the lender that they consider the borrower to be financially sound. Historically, US debt has been seens as a rock-solid investement for international lenders. Why is China different?
You may be right about IP -- I don't know what is in the "back office".
But you're suggesting that Google's only advantage is a head start, and not some internal "secrets". Secrets don't have to be legally protectable IP to be valuable. I've read that one of the reasons Google is resisting the Bush admin's request is to protect its internal methods from public exposure. I think there's something more to this than a simple head start.
Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how advantage that they want to keep secret?
Rick
Sigh...
Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's bullpuckey.
Yes. Or, uh... No.
A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.
Google aggregates publicly available information.
The information is public.
And available.
Go aggregate it. Oops! Google has a head start! But they may not have legally protectable IP!
So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head start?
Sigh...
And that makes you think he's part of the Republican party inner circle how?
Air America is a radio network that was set up for the purposes of stealing money from the Boy Scouts and draining George Soros of cash.
todd
Sorry. Perhaps I was taking you too literally when you posted:
--------------------- "All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had a couple of days ago."
---------------------
Do you consider the subpoena and the loss of share value to be among Google's advantages? If not, ALL that's left -- according to you -- is a head start.
If you don't know what Google wants to keep secret, why did you say:
------------------------ "Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."
-------------------------
Do I have to remind you that you posted that, not me?
So let's recap.
- You originally said all Google has is a head start, but you followed up denying you had said it.
- You also said Google isn't doing anything proprietary, but later admitted you didn't know what Google may be keeping secret.
- Finally, after you said that all Google has is a head start, you attributed the idea to me.
What I want to know is why you did these things in a simple usenet discussion. Are you dishonest or just stupid? Rick
As you quoted, I said: "All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had a couple of days ago."
Which of those items do you consider to be Google's advantage? The head start?
What does that have to do with anything that Google may have as a secret?
Yes, let's.
Yes.
I did not do that.
Correct
Is Google keeping things secret? How do you know? If they are, the secrets are SECRET, no? So if Google is keeping secrets, how would I know what secrets they're keeping?
Admitting I don't know secret information (or even if it exists) is damning exactly how? Even if it exists, it's a SECRET.
Where did I do that? Do you not understand the difference between the assertive and the interrogative?
No, I'm not. But you certainlly appear to be one of the two.
You have to realize that in Fredfighter's world, the act of accusing those espousing ideas not in line with the congressional left or the NYT editorial page of being mindless robots directed by Rush Limbaugh no longer gets the desired reaction. Thus, he has had to cast about for someone at the fringes in order to attempt to denigrate those with whom he disagrees.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I'm a reasonbly conservative-type, and AFAIC, Pat Robertson is a slightly wacky TV preacher who has a tendency to say inappropriate things. IMHO, he's the fringe of the Republican party, but I wouldn't go quite as far to say kook fringe. He certainly doesn't "dictate Republican policy" as he does in Fredfighter's imaginary world.
todd
Guilt by association. Robertson was once a slighly provocative ultra-conservative with a religious fan base. He has aged into becoming a loon. No serious political platform is built around his personal insanity and suggesting so is just flatly wrong. Certainly the Republican party has to pay some homage' to the Religious Right - they are a considerable constituency - but that hardly makes him a principal in Republican policy setting.
Personally, I find Robertson's lunacy far more entertaining than, say, Kennedy's (who is just another tired old drunk)...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.