stevo

Roach, please explain what you mean here. "rehearse the outlines of neoliberal ideology in its crudest form"

Try to speak in plain english for us lay people who don't have time to decipher your encripted statements.

Whats that mean: "students who not only take, but actually believe econ 101?"

Are you saying you don't believe in supply & demand or the production possibilities fronier? There's not much more to econ 101 than that.

stevo

For those of you that think cuba is just fine and it is only because of the US embargo that puts them in a bad spot, talk to my grandmother and her brothers and sisters as to why they fled cuba right before castro and after came to power. Why did they leave their homeland for the United States, Canada, and Germany? Was it neocon propaganda that caused their emmigration?

drakers

Because we think we are the end all of all governments. Are government works for us because that is the way it worked out. It isn't going to work for every country, because every country has different values, and that is what shapes a culture to what they are today. Unless your N. Korea, then you just got screwed.

__________________
Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

tecoyah

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Manx

How many American's left or started planning to leave the US on Nov. 3rd?

I wouldn't suggest that Cuba is fine, but there is little reason not to suspect that almost the entirety of their troubles are due to the US embargo. I'd certainly prefer an election process in Cuba, but elections are not the greatest thing since sliced bread - just look how absurd and abstract the elections are here in the States.

roachboy

1.
econ 101 (macro and micro economics) is the systematization of the elementary features of market ideology.
it refers to that ideology for its justification, its content and its form
it does not, and cannot refer to economic activity as it unfolds in the social world.

"reality" is excluded a priori.

however, because these ideological exercizes are elaborated in quasi-mathematical language, they are understood as being more serious or descriptive than they are.

among the assumptions that leak from this space (fiction with equations) are:
the notion of the rational economic actor.
the notion of self-regulating markets
the coherence of the idea of supply and demand as descriptive of anything that operates in actually existing capitalism.
the notion of state intervention in economic activity as a distortion.

1a.

further explanation:

there is a very big, very well-known business school that is part of the university where i teach
the business school exerts a drag across how the economics department (which is part of another college) operates.

i get alot of students who have passed or are passing through this system.
i find that many of them forget that the elementary levels of economics as they encounter it is a series of models that refers to the wider economic ideology as its frame of reference, not to the social or the historical.

one result is that they try to use the categories they encounter through these modelling exercizes to group information, posit causal relations, situate actors, explain motivations, analyze the social or historical situation, etc.
they actually beleive that the models function analytically in the world.
that is what i referred to.

2.

on the language i use:

sometimes i have to revert to a more abstract language if i am trying to make a general point.


my choices:

either i write in these spaces in ways that more or less corresponds to how i think about these things

or i dont write here at all because some folk have trouble with the abstract stylistic choices i make, which follow from writing in a way that correlates to how i think.

i debate this from time to time as i sit here for longer than i should engaging in arguments that seem to run at about a 50/50 rate in terms of pointlessness.

it's funny, though:
i dont see many folk complaining about the problems that are entailed with writing in "common sense" terms, no matter how problematic the political claims that are explicitly made, and no matter how noxious the assumptions that inform them.

why is it that it is almost inevitably conservatives who complain about how i write?
what is the linkage between intellectual laziness and being on the right?

this is not to say that what i post is always totally clear--message boards seem to require a compression of thinking and encourage a speed in writing because they lure you into acting as though you are talking in a bar--even as, from time to time, you get seemingly arbitrary demands for standards of evidence that run counter to this model.

i just find it funny that it is always conservatives who complain.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

I see what you're saying now, even if I disagree.

Its probably only the conservatives that complain, because they're the ones that disagree with you. Why would someone that agrees with what you are saying complain about the way you say it? Hell, half the people that read your posts, whether left or right, probably can't understand more than half of what you are trying to say anyways.

Manx

If you're having trouble with roachboy's posts, they built a website for you:

http://www.dictionary.com/

Sometimes, I do not initially comprehend some of his posts, but I take the time to read it a couple times and his opinions become clear. If you don't want to spend a couple extra moments trying to comprehend his post, you should ignore it entirely - otherwise we get discussions like this, which are critical of people with a larger vocabulary. And there's nothing defensible about that.

stevo

Burn.

Most of the time roach's opinions arent worth the extra time it takes to figure them out.

tecoyah

Manx.....I will hope that the above was not intended to insult the intellect of another member.

If it was.....Edit it
If it wasn't.....Dont get pissed Stevo

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Manx

stevo - Before you can make such a declaration (which was probably done only to get chastised by a Mod), you'll have to demonstrate to us that you can even understand one of his posts.

Ignorance is bliss.

edit: tecoyah - My post was not intended to insult anyone. The simple fact is that roachboy has a vocabulary that is beyond average.

stevo

Dont worry tec. Its friday and I'm in a good mood. When I saw that I actually thought it was funny.

The great thing about message boards is you can ignore people when you want to.

And I don't have to demonstrate anything to you manx. Roach and I have had discussions in the past, I think he knows if I understand what he is saying, and if I don't, I ask him to clarify.

Just because one uses large words does not necessarily make them any smarter, it only means they've invested more resources into building thier vocabulary. While others, may decide to invest more in somthing like math, computer science, or economics, than history or english. Why use a big word when a small one will suffice?

But we should end this here for now, so that the thread can get back on track. unless...

tecoyah

Okay....Both of you.....either this stops now....or this thread does



Your Call

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

roachboy

i run into this from time to time.
in itself it is not a big deal--i write something that i am thinking out as i write and it reads more like how i think.
it is not always easy to thread between a more academic mode and a more public one.
things can fall to either side of it.

the ambivalence about posting is a longer-term thing--nothing in particular about it at stake here beyond a kind of reinforcement of the ambivalence.

just so you know.

but thanks, manx.
and stevo: i assumed what you said in no. 47 was the case, so no worries about how far the response ran with me at least.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

Thats what I figured

Manx

I never meant to imply that a larger vocabulary makes you smarter. But if you want to understand roachboy's posts, you're going to have to deal with a larger vocabulary than most people have. That's just the way it is.

As to the purpose of using bigger words - that is obvious, having a larger vocabulary enables you to convey more meaning. A group of basic words do not have nearly the detail of meaning as a group of more complex words. This goes directly to roachboys comment, to which I emphatically agree, that message boards are even more difficult mediums to convey meaning than a conversation or an essay.

tecoyah - There is no problem here.

NCB

*cricketts chirping*

__________________

C4 Diesel

Did someone place a carbomb under this thread, 'cause I came back and it seemingly exploded. There are little tiny pieces of it on the ground, but not much is left.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

roachboy

it seems that when you run into basic questions of political philosophy (how to generate typologies) and you try to address those questions, things can blow up.
it is better, apparently, if your categories are derived from the dominant frame of reference--which is itself the result of political actions--largely motored by the right

(if you control the frame of reference you control people's worlds---definitions of the types at play in a debate are one result of that control)

as for the car bomb metaphor: maybe yes, maybe no.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

trickyy

before this gets locked over semantics, just thought i'd add that the russian communists have protested putin's moves toward a putinocracy.

Russian Liberals, Communists Protest Putin’s Crackdown on Democracy

besides the purported benefits to the respective countries, we're trying to get this to work in certain places (iraq, russia) so it will be easier to change other difficult areas in the future. i'm sure we'd be happier (and less worried from a strategic standpoint) with a democratic china, but i'm not sure if/how we can facilitate this change right now.

as it has been said, a democracy is compatible with our economic system. and it would seem that democratic allies are more likely to "agree to disagree" than actually use military force against one another.

it remains to be seen if this can work in the middle east and beyond...

roachboy

you have to be pretty bloody naieve to characterize problems with the basic terms you use to understand the world as "semantics" in way that that implies definitions do not matter

for example: "democracy"--which the americans do not have--is "compatable" with "our economic system"--the statement means nothing. a prime example of the pseudo-analysis that floats out from the right---pseudo-analysis that it is not about understanding, but rather about cheerleading---as if the current order is so fragile that only an endless, limitless circle jerk can maintain a sense of plausibility.

maybe it is.

either way, i am tired of this.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Yakk

I'm curious roach -- who no capitalization? I know of a few reasons why people don't capitalize, just wondering why you do it.

For the actual question: I have read a rather cute essay that claims that the Americaism philosophy believes that their brand of society is the only true brand, and every other form is evil to greater or lesser extents. In effect, Americanism is the ideological descendant of Manifest Destiny and Puritanism.

[quote="roachboy"]but it seems more than a little--o whats the word--counter-intuitive given that the entire system is predicated on a seperation of ownership of the means of production from those who engage in the activites related to production. but maybe, somewhere, some capitalist ideologue did make such a statement--in the degenerate political climate particular to bushworld, such a person would immediate be labelled a comm-u-nist.

The "in the hands of those who produce" was ... rather ambiguous. "In the hands of those who cause production" might be better. In theory, capitalism allocates capital to people who are good at generating capital and (relatively) stingy at consuming. Those who are productive (either with their capital, or with their labour) gain wealth, which can be either consumed or used to generate more wealth.

I spoke about marx and communism -- I was under the belief that he invented the philosophical basis for communism (as opposed to socialism). I was aiming for the theoretical ideals behind each concept.

I would actually claim that capitalism and democracy are not all that compatable.

Capitalism allocates decision making power by how well you produce and hoard capital.

Democracy allocates decision making power by 1 unit per vote, with a usually pretty good coorelation between people and votes (note: the US senate doesn't have this).

edit: added attribution to trickyy

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

trickyy

it seems that discussing the usage of words can be called semantics. but i guess i should have left that alone, even as a joke.

perhaps i'm using the term "democracy" too loosely. [EDIT: actually webster says i'm fine] what i actually mean, but don't feel like saying every time, is an American/European style of leadership (more similarities than differences here). given that the idea of other countries conforming to this general model has been called "democracy" in various media for a while, it seems that the term would be understood in the context of this discussion as well. should i call this the occidental-style gov't, or is there a better term out there?

regarding the question of the thread, i gave a two minute summary of my interpretation of our actions...basically economic and (militarily) strategic reasons. if our similarites with european and japanese gov'ts is not the reason for strong/flexible trade relations, and certain powerful countries should not be, based upon their systems of gov't, primary concerns of our intelligence community, enlighten me.

EDIT: and since my last post was unclear, i did not mean to imply that the ideas of democracy and captialism, or whatever you want to call these terms, are somehow mystically linked. i meant that instituting democratic gov'ts -elsewhere- makes it easier for us to do business -elsewhere-.

Manx

Definitions of words is clearly important to ensure that there is some collective foundation to a discussion.

Democracy, as it is frequently used, is entirely divergent from the dictionary definition of the term. If you ask yourself if you even wanted the dictionary definition of democracy, you would probably say no. The dictionary definition of the term is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. Modern, Western, "democracies" are not democracies at all, they are republics. One of the primary intentions, ostensibly anyway, of these modern republics is to protect the minorities from the majority.

Which goes back to my point that the use of the term democracy, particularly as applied to U.S. foreign policy, is nothing more than a marketing term. Historically (and by that I mean all of the past 60 years), the US has not worked to create (force) American/European styles of leadership. Rather the US has demonstrably worked to create (force) styles of leadership that are beneficial to US interests (conforming to the will of the US). Repackaging that as "democracy" doesn't change the reality of it into an American/European style of leadership (as if that were some form of ideal to begin with).

Yakk

Personally, I live in a constitutional monarchy, not a republic.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

alansmithee

I would assume that it's the same between ideological impracticality, intellectual arrogance and being on the left.

boatin

I'm curious what your point is here. Are you saying that your statement is as ridiculous as Roach's? Or are you saying that both are true?

I'm skeptical that you mean the first, because you could have said:

Or you could have compared it to something else. You chose things that I think many would agree with. Hell, I agree with those choices some of the time.

That leaves the second choice. Given "ideological impracticality" and "intellectual laziness", my choice is clear, and I know who I want on my team. How many things in this world were once deemed "impractical"? Just about everything?

As far as intellectual arrogance, there seems to be plenty to go around. That is an old charge from the 'right', but that seems to float everyone's boat these days.

There is a third option, of course. That being you disagree with Roach's assessment, but think yours is valid. But I'd like to think no one is THAT arrogant.

But maybe that's just impractical of me.

alansmithee

I think both statements are fairly ridiculous when trying to have a true discussion. I chose two things that (as you pointed out) are usually associated with the left point of view. I could just as easily show where many liberals are intellectually lazy, or right wingers impractical. I think making such assumptions does not lead to any fruitful discourse. It is easy to dismiss a differing viewpoint just because it differs from your own, and then validate your dismissal by believing a stereotype about any who hold opposite opinions.

And FYI, I AM that arrogant .

matthew330

Manx that was cute. Dictionary.com, i'm adding that to my favorites right now. Just so my motives aren't questioned, roachboy's posts are worthwhile chores. 90% of them i have to read 10 times to make sense of them. He does phrase things oddly. The post i commented on i read multiple times. I'm not an idiot, i couldn't make sense of it. If you are the bridge of intellectualism between he and i, feel free to translate. If the point your trying to make, your unable to convey to a relatively bright fellow, you probably don't have one and i'm calling bullshit...bullshit disguised in pseudo-intellectualism. And wouldn't you know, this i s a prime example...

"Definitions of words is clearly important to ensure that there is some collective foundation to a discussion."

What the heck are you trying to say.....words mean things? is that all. By the way, it would be "Definitions of words ARE clearly important". You wrote 17 words to make a point that could have been said in three. "Collective foundation to a discussion"???

Yes words means things, i agree. So does articulation. Work on it. Your argument, if you indeed have one, would travel just a bit further.

Janey

mishandled in the sense that the there was little democracy evident in his tenure as the boss...

Willravel

Threadjacking (don't bother looking it up) seems to be a sign of forementioned arrogance.

This discussion is simply about America forcing democracy. While this clearly makes for a very open and wide range of discussion, this does not include all topics of discussion. In order to show respect to the thread starter for giving you something to discuss, we should strive to keep the "spirit" of thge thread in every post. That being said...

America does have vested interest in countries we have interfered with in a governmental manner. When we had to rebuild Iraq, we need some way to justify the war financially (for the investors, i.e. the federal government) and ethically (to everyone who cares that so many people dies in the war). The showing of how we 'liberated' the people is the show for the peopel who care, the oil and strategic military location are the justification for the $200 billion we had to put into this. The democracy we are establishing there is important for borth groups.

On the one hand, we have those who were outraged by the war. They (we) knew that the reasons for going to war were feeble at best, and were almost certianally covering for the true motives. The WMD search being called off and the links to 9/11 spoke in volumes for this group, who is now more sure than ever that this was wrong. So how do you make these people happy? We show that we are truely giving the people of Iraq freedom, the right that the people of this group hold so dearly. The powers that be are hoping that this will act as at least one positive among the negative. The hope that these people can enjoy a freedom that perhaps they have never known is quite relavent.

On the other hand, we have an organization that has a considerable investment in Iraq. As I said before, and we all know, the U.S.A. will probably spend in excess of $200 billion on the war and reconstruction when all is said and done. What return can we expect for this investment? We have the second largest oil source (as I recall, feel free to correct me) almost at our beck and call. We will almost certinally be first in line for the Iraqi oil that we have earned with blood and money. This oil source is also a hair's breath away from the largest oil source on Earth, Iran. As we now have military bases in Afghanistan and building in Iraq, we will be more than ready for the staging of more military might to show the Iranian royal family that we are certinally in control. Watch the news and you'll no doubt see that America and several other countries are worried about the Iranian nuclear weapons problem (in the same fashion that we were once forried about the Iraqi WMD problem, mind you). What would America be like with control over the first and second largest oil sources in the world? All powerful.

"The power that controls the oil spigot, controls the world."

This is why I think America forces democracy. It makes it much easier to control it's colonies. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

chickentribs

Easy - The Patriot Act allows Federal Agents to institue a conspiracy charge to a case, meaning they bypass any need to show evidence or legal cause to lock somebody up and keep them from speaking to an attorney. Ashcroft put over 1000 people in jail, many of them US citizens, and was not able to get even 1 conviction. Some of those people sat behind bars, not even allowed to see family, for over a year. Bush has siezed power and money from the state and local governments and rolled it up to the Federal level (Constitutional ammendmants to overide State Laws??) to the point that he has become the most flagrant Democrat of the modern era. But this again is off topic...

The US has actually had a pretty bad track record of encouraging democracy to other countries. I would argue it is much easier for us to deal with a dictator who we can keep on our payroll, than trying to win over the hungry masses of said country. For example, we installed the Shah in Iran, we gave Saddam the money and weapons to destroy his political opponents and take rule of Iraq, we funded the Taliban and gave them the weapons to organize an army to fight Russia, and Saudi Arabia uses our guns to silence any democratic revolutionaries that pop up in that US supported kingdom.

Putin was a KGB leader who saw his country fall to pieces under Yeltsin. When Putin was elected into power, people were hungry and homeless in what had been only 10 years earlier a proud, powerful country. Putin is scary because he is effective, determined, and grew up thinking of us as the enemy. We are preaching "democracy" because we need other leaders in Russia to step up and take some of his power away. He has too much influence in the Middle East and is gaining more credibility in world politics every day.

Lastly, for all of the "capitalists" out there arguing against the evils of socialism - obviously the US has never subscribed to a capitalist ideal or free market goals. We institute trade embargos and tariffs around the world, we bail out airlines and subsidize farmers, and we give NO BID contracts to companies our buddies run while refusing to do any business with a company headquartered in France and think it's clever. You are a socialist - live with it, comrade.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

roachboy

yakk: on the non-use of caps
i dont like them aesthetically--i dont like how they look--they dont do anything (like change pronunciation)--so i don't use them when i don't have to.
that and i think i use no caps to split one type of voice off from another--so if i post here in this mode, i do it in a particular style--if i use more formal conventions, i find it all too easy to slip into a more formal/academic voice. in which i am much more careful--which means that things take even longer to set up and argue.


==============


as for the question of definitions in general that has been circulating through here of late:
if you read the review i posted earlier--which refers to a book by a linguist (lakoff) about the nature and effects of conservative strategies at the level of frame of reference/discourse control, you should be able to see why i come at the question of definitions the way i do here:

if you control the categories, you control how people can organize their thoughts about the worls around them
because you control the general terms that folk use to organize information
so if you drain all content from the term democracy
or if you insist that democratic socialism=stalinism=fascism=evil
you are working to undermine informed, coherent debate
or at least to make the terms of debate track along a particular ideological logic

with the result that debates tend to turn in little, self-immolating circles within the general fram of right ideology without being able to step outside that ideology

there is nothing that runs more counter to any illusion of democracy than a concerted campaign to monopoloize the frame of reference within which it can function.
this is not about debate: it is about population management, opinion management
as a political actor under this scenario, you do not have any power: you are a problem to be managed
whence the suggestions that bushworld can be characterized as a soft totalitarian system: totalitarian in its aspirations to control meanings and thereby to control political life: soft in its reliance on manipulation of discourse rather than on direct physical coercion. at least so far.

it is curious still to see debates about types of political systems get caught in the strange loops provided by right ideology.
the chaos in this thread follows in part from this--and as an index of how things go when a challenge is presented to the definitions that shape these loops.

conservatives here are true to form: they shift straight into ad hominem rather than actually defend their arguments and the terms that underpin them.

such is the dominant mode of non-debate in bushland: when challenged, try to act as though nothing has happened and ridicule the message. as if that can be passed off as logic.

well, in the narrow confines of bushworld, maybe that is what passes for logic.

but what it does not, and cannot, pass for is anything like democratic process.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Manx

Where's tecoyah when you need him?

tecoyah

OK....I was going to leave this alone, as it is a relatively well vieled insult.

We all know as well that this is by far the most heated part of Tilted Forum Project, and thus must be Heavily Moderated to maintain the community we all care about.The line I refer to in here is a fine one....and some of you are quite skilled at walking it , without crossing over. In my opinion this is an excellent example of intellectual prowess, and CAN be useful in debate.

That said, I am asking everyone to think carefully about what we post in here, and work a bit harder to respect each other. On the flip side of this request is a Plea for everyone to grow a bit thicker hide, and realize where you are.....this IS after all, the politics forum.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Manx

So you're telling me that you cannot distinguish any difference, other than number of words, between these two sentences:

"Words mean things"

"Definitions of words are clearly important to ensure that there is some collective foundation to a discussion"

Is that what you're telling me? Do you honestly not see a significant difference in meaning or were you simply hoping to be snide without having a valid point?

I'll pretend you are honestly incapable of seeing the obvious difference, and point it out to you:

Communication is a function of pattern recognition. Letters grouped to form words grouped to form sentences grouped to form opinions are contingent on compatible pattern recognition from all the parties involved in the communication. We are all using the same letters, those belonging to the English language. So we must ensure that the words we are forming with those letters are understood to mean something as specific as possible across each and every participant. Otherwise, the sentences become long strings of divergent meaning and the opinions become garbled messes of endlessly questioned and never understood sentences. We have a foundation of letters that are all agreeable, so we are able to form words that are recognized as words by all participants. The next step is to ensure that the definitions of the words that are used are, as close as possible, agreeable. Without that foundation of agreeably defined words, sentences are meaningless and opinions are pointless.

Now, I tried to shorten that down to 17 words for you, but it was clearly too concise. You suggested it could have been shortened to 3 words, but I don't see how. Maybe I could have shortened it to a single letter? How about "X". Perfection in articulation.

nofnway

America "forces" democracy on other countries to promote its own self (not selfish, although by reading this thread not many would agree) interests. Some sort of democracy clearly favors American interests. Values, economics, and political structure as well as stability all play a part. It may be only my opinion that democracy affords the greatest number of people the greatest amount of freedom.


But asking " Why does america Force democracy on other countries?" seems like loading the question. The same as simply stating "America forces democracy on other countries. Why does it do that? " Though you haven't established the premise.

I read the article and I don't get "forcing democracy" from it. Encouraging...yes....Differences in approach?....surely. Were you truly wondering why? or did you already believe so and were attempting to justify that belief?

Either way you might consider these questions....I do constantly..

Why wouldn't The United States encourage the spread of democracy?
What peoples willingly submitted to communism?
Socialism and Democracy are ultimately about capitalism, Isn't the debate about who controls the capital?....

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

chickentribs

nofnway - It would be interesting to hear your definition of "forcing" vs. "encouraging". I would imagine once you point a gun at them surely you still don't refer to it as encouraging?

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

Willravel

My question is: what makes you think America does not force democracy? What, for you, makes this a case of "encouragement" instead of forcing?

In his recent speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush pledged that the United States would embark on a decades-long commitment to bring democracy to the Middle East. He did not say we'd ask them if they want a democracy, or encourage a democracy. He is commited to bring democracy to them. The problem is that the Middle East lacks the conditions, such as a democratic political history, high standards of living, and high literacy rates, which stimulated democratic change in, for example, central Europe and East Asia. The belief that the United States can accelerate this process is based on the same fatal conceit that brought down the Soviet empire: namely, that governments, and especially foreign governments, can realistically dictate noble ends. Ronald Reagan understood this as well as anyone. President Bush's speech deliberately drew comparisons to President Reagan's June 1982 speech, in which Reagan predicted the imminent demise of Soviet communism because it failed to respect individual rights and to reward individual creativity. And we all know of Reagan's mistrust of government. Revealingly, the United States spent hundreds of millions of dollars on democracy programs in the Middle East during the 1990s with no noticeable impact. Instead, as the president declared, the success of freedom rests upon the willingness of free peoples to sacrifice. But the people of the Middle East, not the people of the United States, must make these sacrifices. Indeed, heavy-handed attempts to force democracy upon the region by military conquest will ultimately prove counter-productive toward those ends, as the events in Iraq are showing us every day. Global terrorism is UP since 9/11. Global terrorism is UP since the so-called victory over Iraq. This is the problem with the democracy we have been trying to plant. Osama would not have attacked had we not interfered with the Middle East. What he did was wrong, of course, but remember that it was not simply some "anti-american attack with no rhyme or reason". Sorry, I'm getting off subject.

Who's idea was it to spread democracy in the Middle East? Who invaded Iraq (based on lies) in order to remove the authoritarian government? Who is spending $200 billion+ to rebuild Iraq? Who uses the most oil? Who's been trying to spread democracy since the end of WW2? All signs point to "forced" instead of "encouraged".


(Thanks to Patrick Basham and Christopher Preble for some good ideas for this post, credit where due).

matthew330

"Communication is a function of pattern recognition. Letters grouped to form words grouped to form sentences grouped to form opinions are contingent on compatible pattern recognition from all the parties involved in the communication. We are all using the same letters, those belonging to the English language. So we must ensure that the words we are forming with those letters are understood to mean something as specific as possible across each and every participant. Otherwise, the sentences become long strings of divergent meaning and the opinions become garbled messes of endlessly questioned and never understood sentences. We have a foundation of letters that are all agreeable, so we are able to form words that are recognized as words by all participants. The next step is to ensure that the definitions of the words that are used are, as close as possible, agreeable. Without that foundation of agreeably defined words, sentences are meaningless and opinions are pointless"

ahh, i see. ....so...letters mean things?