Russia tests world's biggest bomb

[C'dale Girl]

Guess what? The American society and politics are going strongly toward Christian fundamentalism. Is that what US model of democracy brings?

I'm curious, have you lived in the United States or spent a great deal of time there?

It is an oversimplification, misrepresentation and misstatement to claim that American society and politics are leaning towards christian fundamentalism. Just because the republican party has in recent years done a fine job in their political campaign of taking advantage of the blind religious rights and encouraging them to come out and vote in masses for their guy(s) and the democrats have been unable to find a good enough reason that would likewise motivate their masses doesn't mean Christian fundamentalism represents reality in the ranks of American society.

The harsh reality is that only a minority of registered voters show up at the polls . . . . hardly representative of the general population. Don't confuse politics and complex, manipulative political campaigns with reality and then make the mistake of making over-generalizations as to Americans and American society as a whole. As one example, granted I've always lived in urban and suburban areas in the United States and rural America is where many of the fundamentalists reside, but many more people live in the suburbs and cities than the rural areas and in my adult life I've been hard pressed to find many families that even attend church, much less adhere to the extremist christian views.

If you look at recent American political history you will find that the pendulum has swung in the other direction with the legislature being made up of a democratic majority as of the last election, though slight at the moment. The momentum is changing and that will show even more clearly in the next Presidential election imo, assuming the democrats can put a qualified candidate forward. We can only elect a President every four years. Give us a chance. Many former Bush supporters have seen the light in the last four years especially, but our hands are tied until the next election. The people have spoken their dissatisfaction with the last congressional election and that same voice will hopefully come through again in the 2008 Presidential election.

Listening to what you read or hear in any news medium and taking it as gospel likely doesn't get you the truth any way you look at it, whether it's Fox News or CNN. There is a political undertone in any medium that relays politically oriented information and the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[wolfix]

limerickman]Wolf - putting this sort of stuff out and proclaiming it as factual is dangerous
and incorrect............. There were people executed in Iran - they weren't executed because they were gay..

Amnesty International Amnesty International disagrees...... And some of your more liberal European governments disagree.

In March 2006, Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk said that it was now clear

"that there is no question of executions or death sentences based solely on the fact that a defendant is gay," adding that homosexuality was never the primary charge against people.

Now it can be argued that the men committed other crimes, but the fact they were gay is the reason they were hung...... Convenient reason.

There is no law against homosexuality on the statute books of Iran.

This is off the net........ And the Iranian president just denied that ****'s are present in Iran. This is coming from a man that said something about wiping another country off the map........ A statement of that caliber coming from a leader id pretty indicitive of the level of progressiveness of his country.

Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the legal code has been based on a conservative interpretation of Islamic Shari's law. All sexual relations that occur outside of a traditional, heterosexual marriage (i.e. sodomy or adultery) are illegal and no legal distinction is made between consensual or non-consensual sexual activity. Homosexual relations that occur between consenting adults in private are a crime and carry a maximum punishment of death. Teenage boys as young as fifteen are eligible for the death penalty Approved by the Islamic Republic Parliament on 30/7/1991 and finally ratified by the High Expediency Council on 28/11/1991, articles 108 through 140 distinctly talk about homosexuality and its punishments in detail

Nor am I saying that I agree with people being executed.

In fulll agreement.

 

[Carrera]

There appear to be serious human rights issues in the U.S. and it's a point of concern. In many ways, there's even a comparison with Iran. For example, Wolfix is pointing out how gays and lesbians in Iran suffer repression whereas we know in the U.S.A. gays and lesbians have freedom and protection.
On the other hand, there is serious repression of black people in certain areas of the U.S., to the point there's just been a huge march in Louisiana, joined by Jesse Jackson. There's the case of the chain gangs which is pretty shocking. You ask yourself why this situation hasn't been dealt with immediately. I understand some of the chain gang members are there for prostitution -probably disadvantaged women who got into trouble.
There was the case of a woman facing 10 years in jail for serving alcohol to some teens at a house party and where we compare with Iran is over the morality and religious belief that fuels such situations. No doubt that sheriff attends church every Sunday too.
Then we see potential presidential candidates being forced to appear on national television to profess their belief in God (does any secular atheist or agnostic really stand a hope??)
Here's the point, though: People need to wake up and smell the coffee. We do not live in a so-called democracy, not even over here in the U.K. The Greeks who invented democracy didn't follow so-called "leaders" such as Blair or Bush who make decisions over our heads. Greeks had an actual role in policy. They participated and could even bring charges against a political leader and hold him to account.
What we see (even in Europe) is an Oligarchy. That is to say, the collective rule of an educated elite who only represent a tiny fraction of the population. We don't have a multiparty system either, for that matter. Mass immigration is forced over our heads. War is undertaken without even a referendum. Protests are stifled. Bush criticizes Burma yet we see images of Vietnam protesters being cracked over the skull by police in the U.S. for opposing policy. Also in the U.K., most protests are banned - the excuse being terrorism e.t.c.
My view is democracy starts at home. Before we can even begin to try and encourage democracy in Iran, we'd better sort out our own ship first. Bush has been accused of state sponsered torture, deceit, major human rights abuses and disdain for democratic values. He's been criticized worldwide as a hypocrite and you can't blame people for reaching such a conclusion.

The United States Constitution affords certain freedoms to law abiding American citizens. Convicted criminals are not afforded the same rights. The most obvious example is the constitutional right to liberty . . . . convicted criminals sentenced to serve jail time clearly lose this right, as they lose their freedom.

This is not to say that I support the use of chain gangs as punishment. The Eighth Amendment protects individuals from "cruel and unusual punishment." Hence, the issues with the sheriff and his chain gangs that you are hearing about.

It is not analogous to compare convicted criminals to law abiding American citizens, even under the Constitution. It is flawed to argue that on this basis Americans are hypocrits and hardly the representative democratic nation they tout themselves to be.

 

[Carrera]

It's now almost impossible to succeed in American politics as an agnostic or secular politician. Read this article and see why:


"In the US, where freedom to practise religion - or to have no religion at all - is enshrined in the constitution, the consequences of being an atheist are electorally dire for anybody seeking public office.

Until a few years ago, the Colorado businessman Dave Habecker had served on his local town council for 13 years.

One of his fellow councillors successfully introduced the reciting of the national pledge of allegiance - in response to the Iraq war - as a sign of support for US troops, said Mr Habecker.
Ever since the mid-1950s, the pledge has contained the phrase "Under God" and at the height of the anti-communist era, US bank notes were also changed to include the inscription: "In God We Trust".

Mr Habecker refused to stand and recite the pledge, and after being branded unpatriotic, was forced to enter a fresh election contest to remove him from office. He lost by some 300 votes.

"I don't know that anybody feels elated that I was removed from office for this reason," he told the programme.

"Deep down they know that I was removed for my religious beliefs, which is anti-American. We brag about being the freest country in the world. Why do we coerce our citizens to stand and recite a pledge of allegiance? It's a paradox."

While it may be virtually impossible to survive in office without faith in a supreme being, it remains to be seen how successful the Democratic Party's new confidence in the power of personal testimony will prove to be with a divided and volatile electorate."

 

[Carrera]

Here's the amnesty report on Arpaio:

"Amnesty International expressed grave concern about ill-treatment in prisons and jails. In June Amnesty International delegates visited several jails and met officials and others in Maricopa County, Arizona. Among the issues raised in subsequent correspondence were the death of Scott Norberg in Madison Street Jail in June 1996 after a struggle with guards in which he sustained numerous contusions, was repeatedly hit with a stun gun and strapped into a restraint chair; allegations that other inmates in the same jail had been ill-treated; misuse of the restraint chair in other cases; the conditions for female juvenile detainees; and poor conditions in a facility in which jail inmates were housed in tents. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio replied to Amnesty International in October stating, among other things, that any instances of excessive force were adequately dealt with by the jail authorities, and defending the use of the restraint chair and stun devices."

 

[limerickman]

There appear to be serious human rights issues in the U.S. and it's a point of concern. In many ways, there's even a comparison with Iran. For example, Wolfix is pointing out how gays and lesbians in Iran suffer repression whereas we know in the U.S.A. gays and lesbians have freedom and protection.
On the other hand, there is serious repression of black people in certain areas of the U.S., to the point there's just been a huge march in Louisiana, joined by Jesse Jackson. There's the case of the chain gangs which is pretty shocking. You ask yourself why this situation hasn't been dealt with immediately. I understand some of the chain gang members are there for prostitution -probably disadvantaged women who got into trouble.
.

You'll be accused of being anti-American, Carerra.

Here's the point, though: People need to wake up and smell the coffee. We do not live in a so-called democracy, not even over here in the U.K. The Greeks who invented democracy didn't follow so-called "leaders" such as Blair or Bush who make decisions over our heads. Greeks had an actual role in policy. They participated and could even bring charges against a political leader and hold him to account.
.

I would argue that the western european model of democracy bears a closer
resemblance to the definition of true democracy than anywhere else, currently.

Look at the Scandinavian models of democracy....they're enlightened societies with a relatively equal distribution of wealth for all.
To me, democracy is about the even distribution of wealth to all citizens.
The greater the degree of difference, between the "haves" and the "have nots"........the less democratic society is.
It is also based on people having jobs, having the opportunity to get an education, equal rights for all.

If you look at your history, you'll see where there is a uneven distribution of wealth, social upheaval follows......Weimar Republic in Germany, 1917 Revolution in Russia, are examples.

My view is democracy starts at home. Before we can even begin to try and encourage democracy in Iran, we'd better sort out our own ship first. Bush has been accused of state sponsered torture, deceit, major human rights abuses and disdain for democratic values. He's been criticized worldwide as a hypocrite and you can't blame people for reaching such a conclusion.

Agreed.

 

[Carrera]

I'm not really anti American. In fact, many Americans share my views. For example, Kirk Douglas recently lamented what's been going on in the U.S. over the last decade or so. Other Hollywood stars have followed.
I think the danger is the majority of Americans are told over and over again how they're a free democracy till they automatically assume it must be so. To be fair, this happens over here as well.
9/11 didn't help. Since 9/11 politicians have used the fear of terrorism to carry out an agenda of stifling freedom and creating an overbearing State where individual rights are trampled on too many times.
Of course, it was heartening to see Jesse Jackson and many other civil liberties protesters drawing a red line and marching to Louisiana to shame the powers that be. All that happened was some black kids sat under a tree reserved for whites and nooses were then tied to that tree the following day. Then, some blacks who got into a fight with some white kids were jailed for many years and finally the civil rights moverment got into gear. People marched.
It's not just black people, though. We forget socially poorer whites are also being abused in U.S. chain gangs. It's always the marginalised Americans who are excluded.
It's the same old story - the same situation Muhammad Ali opposed back in the sixties and the black and white folks who protested against Vietnam both had their skulls cracked together.
Do you remember how John Lennon got onto something like this back in the sixties? It was similar to the incident I reported about a housewife facing 10 years in jail for serving some alcohol at a teens party. Well, back then this was a guy who smoked a joint and I think he got a 10 year jail sentence. John Lennon took up his case and rallied a lot of people during concerts in America. It was a turbulent time but back then people were less reluctant to challenge abuses whereas sadly today right wing policies have more support.
Lennon, Muhammad Ali, King were all fighting the same situation as we see today.

You'll be accused of being anti-American, Carerra.




I would argue that the western european model of democracy bears a closer
resemblance to the definition of true democracy than anywhere else, currently.

Look at the Scandinavian models of democracy....they're enlightened societies with a relatively equal distribution of wealth for all.
To me, democracy is about the even distribution of wealth to all citizens.
The greater the degree of difference, between the "haves" and the "have nots"........the less democratic society is.
It is also based on people having jobs, having the opportunity to get an education, equal rights for all.

If you look at your history, you'll see where there is a uneven distribution of wealth, social upheaval follows......Weimar Republic in Germany, 1917 Revolution in Russia, are examples.





Agreed.

 

[11ring]

How's this for an amazing example of Civil rights abuses in the US.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=14094

To summarise, an 18 year old black activist gets railroaded into serving time on a trumped up charge because of the threat of being charged under terror legislation.

It makes me very angry.

 

[happylight]

How's this for an amazing example of Civil rights abuses in the US.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=14094

To summarise, an 18 year old black activist gets railroaded into serving time on a trumped up charge because of the threat of being charged under terror legislation.

It makes me very angry.

Some things never change

 

[Crankyfeet]

To me, democracy is about the even distribution of wealth to all citizens.

OMG. Ala communism. If capital is continually transferred from those who effectively use/invest it to those that squander it, the overall economy will suffer. The pie is not a fixed size thing. It is not independent of overall work ethic or the cumulative decision making of those that hold capital.

Socialism/communism has been tried and tested, and it has failed. It sounds like Xanadu on the surface. But it makes about as much economic sense as a family dividing up all its wealth equally amongst parents and their infant/adolescent children. If you cut the legs off the risk-takers, you end up with what you have in much of Western Europe. In your ideal democracy, with an even distribution of wealth, why work hard or take a risk? Just sit back, relax, and reap the same rewards as everyone else.

But I am not against welfare - I'm for it - for those that genuinely need it.

America's economic success, as much as some in Europe despise it, has been built upon meritocracy and the culture of individual responsibility and hard work. Here is a country that has it all, has every reason to lay back and just enjoy all the fruits, but instead is one of the hardest-working nations in the world.

I have much contempt for alot of American foreign policy, and some of its ills, but am extremely impressed by its constitution and its resilience to pandering to the weak which is the usual end-game of democracies where the people wanting hand-outs usually outnumber those who morally resist it.

Lim, your country has been doing great economically the last 15-20 years. It didn't happen because the governent decided to increase taxes on those that are well-off and distribute it to those with less. The Irish pie is growing fast. And everyone, at every strata of wealth, is benefiting.

Also, the US people are some of the most philanthropic in the world. The level of charitable giving here is staggering.

But I take your point about wealth disparity causing social unrest. It usually ferments into frustration and violence IMO when it gets to the stage of the wealthy having too many advantages over the have-nots (ie away from an egalitarian meritocracy). When smart poor people are hamstrung....look out!

What the US is struggling with since the new administration took power in this millenium is a creep into fascism. Some of the propaganda and spin here is almost Goebbels-like. And the rest of the world can read it better than the average American, who always seems to get hoodwinked by the patriotism mantra and a filtered media, unbeknownst to them.

 

[Carrera]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM

"communism has been tried and tested, and it has failed."

Not really true. First and foremost, the vacuum bomb you see being tested in Russia (a deliverable weapon due to its smaller size) is really just part of the legacy of the USSR years when all this technology was developed. Putin himself admitted modern Russia would be nothing today were it not for the USSR legacy.
Lenin, for all his faults, transformed a backward, peasant/worker community into a superpower - one that by the admission of ****** was more powerful than Germany (in spite of the purges and blunders). The trouble was much of the USSR advancement was in the military/science field and there was a huge neglect of consumer economics. Having lived there, I can tell you standing in a queue for stringy sausages did tend to fall sour towards the end. This was the problem - education was better than in the west but living standards were too low. Also, Moscow gave away way too much resources to other countries with the idea of making communism global.
Therefore, do I believe we'd all be better off under Soviet Communism? The answer is negative. I think Communism in Russia needed to be reformed and updated since obviously the world was a different one to the times of Dickens when workers were being exploited and inequality was rife in Europe.
Maybe we'd have been looking at some of the ideas used in Sweden and maybe, to a point, Cuba. What Gorbachev hoped for was a kind of softened up communism with a free press and a liberal prosperous society. He failed, of course.
However, the last point is this: Without a plan you cannot have success, especially in cycling. If you don't ride to a structured set of principles and targets, you cannot reach your potential. It's the same in society. Either we continue with wild west markets with recessions, falling currencies and high crime, or we organise society to be run in the best way for the collective good - not just the good of a minority elite.
Let's also remember Einstein backed socialism as opposed capitalism and not only Einstein but possibly Plato as well.

OMG. Ala communism. If capital is continually transferred from those who effectively use/invest it to those that squander it, the overall economy will suffer. The pie is not a fixed size thing. It is not independent of overall work ethic or the cumulative decision making of those that hold capital.

Socialism/communism has been tried and tested, and it has failed. It sounds like Xanadu on the surface. But it makes about as much economic sense as a family dividing up all its wealth equally amongst parents and their infant/adolescent children. If you cut the legs off the risk-takers, you end up with what you have in much of Western Europe. In your ideal democracy, with an even distribution of wealth, why work hard or take a risk? Just sit back, relax, and reap the same rewards as everyone else.

But I am not against welfare - I'm for it - for those that genuinely need it.

America's economic success, as much as some in Europe despise it, has been built upon meritocracy and the culture of individual responsibility and hard work. Here is a country that has it all, has every reason to lay back and just enjoy all the fruits, but instead is one of the hardest-working nations in the world.

I have much contempt for alot of American foreign policy, and some of its ills, but am extremely impressed by its constitution and its resilience to pandering to the weak which is the usual end-game of democracies where the people wanting hand-outs usually outnumber those who morally resist it.

Lim, your country has been doing great economically the last 15-20 years. It didn't happen because the governent decided to increase taxes on those that are well-off and distribute it to those with less. The Irish pie is growing fast. And everyone, at every strata of wealth, is benefiting.

Also, the US people are some of the most philanthropic in the world. The level of charitable giving here is staggering.

But I take your point about wealth disparity causing social unrest. It usually ferments into frustration and violence IMO when it gets to the stage of the wealthy having too many advantages over the have-nots (ie away from an egalitarian meritocracy). When smart poor people are hamstrung....look out!

What the US is struggling with since the new administration took power in this millenium is a creep into fascism. Some of the propaganda and spin here is almost Goebbels-like. And the rest of the world can read it better than the average American, who always seems to get hoodwinked by the patriotism mantra and a filtered media, unbeknownst to them.

 

[Crankyfeet]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM

"communism has been tried and tested, and it has failed."

Not really true. First and foremost, the vacuum bomb you see being tested in Russia (a deliverable weapon due to its smaller size) is really just part of the legacy of the USSR years when all this technology was developed. Putin himself admitted modern Russia would be nothing today were it not for the USSR legacy.

Beg to differ. The competitive creation of bombs is hardly a benchmark to measure the success of a system of society/government.

Lenin, for all his faults, transformed a backward, peasant/worker community into a superpower - one that by the admission of ****** was more powerful than Germany (in spite of the purges and blunders). The trouble was much of the USSR advancement was in the military/science field and there was a huge neglect of consumer economics.

Um...if you focus nearly all the resources of your country of 200+million on engineering, science, rockets, bombs, missiles and other armaments, you are going to do pretty well on the world superpower ratings. America has done OK on this score as well. But it doesn't reflect the worthiness of the system. Time took care of making that ultimate judgment.

Having lived there, I can tell you standing in a queue for stringy sausages did tend to fall sour towards the end. This was the problem - education was better than in the west but living standards were too low.

I never lived there but consumer economics and living standards weren't just low IMO. They were pitiful. Not even worth comparing to the West. The country had to seal its borders to prevent citizen escape. The people were protected from the truth and spun lies. A high percentage of the country was wallowing in alcoholism.

Also, Moscow gave away way too much resources to other countries with the idea of making communism global.

Um..I think that America was up there on that count with loans to developing countries, the World Bank, The UN etc. Furthermore it is a contradictory argument to say that the USSR's excessive investments in global communism contributed towards the failure of global communism.

Therefore, do I believe we'd all be better off under Soviet Communism? The answer is negative. I think Communism in Russia needed to be reformed and updated since obviously the world was a different one to the times of Dickens when workers were being exploited and inequality was rife in Europe.

You just displayed the whole problem in a nutshell. The supreme "State" couldn't even work out that times had changed between Marx's Dickensonian era and the late part of the 20th century. What chance did they have of crystal balling the future and allocating resources in a so-called "planned" society and future if they couldn't even complete that rudimentary analysis. It seems a classic rationalization to those hooked on the idea of communism in the past that it all failed because of little factors X, Y , or Z. You know, like the people who think that the Iraq war would have gone smashingly if we had have just sent 20,000 more troops initially.

Maybe we'd have been looking at some of the ideas used in Sweden and maybe, to a point, Cuba. What Gorbachev hoped for was a kind of softened up communism with a free press and a liberal prosperous society. He failed, of course.

Look IMHO it failed because it goes against human nature. Human nature seeks betterment, competition, achievement and respect. In the communist society, this was channelled into hierarchy within the Communist Party. The State became a collection of elites. Its ultimate power on anything and everything corrupted it. Its a nice thought that everyone loves each other, and everyone works for the common good etc etc. It might work in a small commune of 20 like-minded people. But no matter which way you cut it, communism failed because it is not synergynistic with nature. That's the bottom line. And any Society that promotes based on connections and loyalty etc. rather than merit, ends up getting corrupted by a bunch of idiots like the USSR did. Brezhnev's coterie were a bunch of numbskulls.

However, the last point is this: Without a plan you cannot have success, especially in cycling. If you don't ride to a structured set of principles and targets, you cannot reach your potential. It's the same in society. Either we continue with wild west markets with recessions, falling currencies and high crime, or we organise society to be run in the best way for the collective good - not just the good of a minority elite.
Let's also remember Einstein backed socialism as opposed capitalism and not only Einstein but possibly Plato as well.

Unfortunately, a progressive and functioning society, the economy, and predicting the future are much too hard of a task for a roomful of elites to work out. It isn't a training schedule for a simple cycling race season. Just look at all the countries who pumped money into creating their own "Silicon Valleys" in the late 90's. The market place and an open society has proved to be the most effective adaptive system for progress. It just berates some academics that it works better than if they were "controlling" it.

I am not one of those that thinks everything is evil concerning communism/socialism, as was brainwashed into most of the west over the last 60 years. But whilst it is a nice thought that people could all live happily together sharing equally in the fruits of society, it just doesn't work. And China has realized that, and done an about-face on communism, though retaining the undemocratic "State" in power. Communism in China is a joke. Its really just totalitarianism, with whatever system works best underneath, as long as it doesn't threaten those in power.

I believe a democratic, open society, with capitalistic underpinnings, a low safety net for those needing welfare, and a rock-solid constitution and independent judiciary and media are the best of a bad bunch of systems. Time is seemingly on my side here. I do think that government has a role to play as umpire, making sure corporations play by the rules, and protecting against cartels and monopolies. Also taking care of massive collective capital works beyond the scope of corporations as well as defense, and other infrastructure.

 

[Bro Deal]

Beg to differ. The competitive creation of bombs is hardly a benchmark to measure the success of a system of society/government.

Um...if you focus nearly all the resources of your country of 200+million on engineering, science, rockets, bombs, missiles and other armaments, you are going to do pretty well on the world superpower ratings. America has done OK on this score as well. But it doesn't reflect the worthiness of the system. Time took care of making that ultimate judgment.

I never lived there but consumer economics and living standards weren't just low IMO. They were pitiful. Not even worth comparing to the West. The country had to seal its borders to prevent citizen escape. The people were protected from the truth and spun lies. A high percentage of the country was wallowing in alcoholism.

+1

When looking at the USSR you have to look at the opportunity costs that were given up by not using a better economic system. It is not enough to look at the state the population was in before Lenin and point out a few military or space accomplishments.

If I remember right, the USSR was spending about 25% of its GDP on its military. When the USSR finally fell apart CIA analysts were shocked; they had grossly overestimated the size of the country's economy. Life epectancy for Russian males is like sixty years, and the population is declining.

The USSR was run into the ground. It took seventy years to do it, but slowly and surely it was done.

 

[Crankyfeet]

There appear to be serious human rights issues in the U.S. and it's a point of concern. In many ways, there's even a comparison with Iran. For example, Wolfix is pointing out how gays and lesbians in Iran suffer repression whereas we know in the U.S.A. gays and lesbians have freedom and protection.
On the other hand, there is serious repression of black people in certain areas of the U.S., to the point there's just been a huge march in Louisiana, joined by Jesse Jackson. There's the case of the chain gangs which is pretty shocking. You ask yourself why this situation hasn't been dealt with immediately. I understand some of the chain gang members are there for prostitution -probably disadvantaged women who got into trouble.
There was the case of a woman facing 10 years in jail for serving alcohol to some teens at a house party and where we compare with Iran is over the morality and religious belief that fuels such situations. No doubt that sheriff attends church every Sunday too.
Then we see potential presidential candidates being forced to appear on national television to profess their belief in God (does any secular atheist or agnostic really stand a hope??)
Here's the point, though: People need to wake up and smell the coffee. We do not live in a so-called democracy, not even over here in the U.K. The Greeks who invented democracy didn't follow so-called "leaders" such as Blair or Bush who make decisions over our heads. Greeks had an actual role in policy. They participated and could even bring charges against a political leader and hold him to account.
What we see (even in Europe) is an Oligarchy. That is to say, the collective rule of an educated elite who only represent a tiny fraction of the population. We don't have a multiparty system either, for that matter. Mass immigration is forced over our heads. War is undertaken without even a referendum. Protests are stifled. Bush criticizes Burma yet we see images of Vietnam protesters being cracked over the skull by police in the U.S. for opposing policy. Also in the U.K., most protests are banned - the excuse being terrorism e.t.c.
My view is democracy starts at home. Before we can even begin to try and encourage democracy in Iran, we'd better sort out our own ship first. Bush has been accused of state sponsered torture, deceit, major human rights abuses and disdain for democratic values. He's been criticized worldwide as a hypocrite and you can't blame people for reaching such a conclusion.

I think your a smart guy Carerra. Also obviously a communist sympathizer, which I don't hold against you. But I think you are using very weird news stories from America, and then assuming that this is normal life here. These news stories are typically aired because they are shocking and usually end up with a majority backlash. To profile the whole country from this paltry anecdotal evidence is fallacious and reeks of cherry-picking to make a point.

Yes there is hypocrisy in the US. Yes it isn't a perfect country. Yes, many of the people can be deluded for awhile. But overall, the mechanisms of free speech, democracy, separation of church and state, liberty, limited presidential reign, etc. keep the cart from falling too far off the tracks. Once these elements are subverted by those in power, the corrupted end-product is guaranteed, as we've seen throughout history, in other fallen nations.

 

[limerickman]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM

"communism has been tried and tested, and it has failed."

Not really true. First and foremost, the vacuum bomb you see being tested in Russia (a deliverable weapon due to its smaller size) is really just part of the legacy of the USSR years when all this technology was developed. Putin himself admitted modern Russia would be nothing today were it not for the USSR legacy.
Lenin, for all his faults, transformed a backward, peasant/worker community into a superpower - one that by the admission of ****** was more powerful than Germany (in spite of the purges and blunders). The trouble was much of the USSR advancement was in the military/science field and there was a huge neglect of consumer economics. Having lived there, I can tell you standing in a queue for stringy sausages did tend to fall sour towards the end. This was the problem - education was better than in the west but living standards were too low. Also, Moscow gave away way too much resources to other countries with the idea of making communism global.
Therefore, do I believe we'd all be better off under Soviet Communism? The answer is negative. I think Communism in Russia needed to be reformed and updated since obviously the world was a different one to the times of Dickens when workers were being exploited and inequality was rife in Europe.
Maybe we'd have been looking at some of the ideas used in Sweden and maybe, to a point, Cuba. What Gorbachev hoped for was a kind of softened up communism with a free press and a liberal prosperous society. He failed, of course.
However, the last point is this: Without a plan you cannot have success, especially in cycling. If you don't ride to a structured set of principles and targets, you cannot reach your potential. It's the same in society. Either we continue with wild west markets with recessions, falling currencies and high crime, or we organise society to be run in the best way for the collective good - not just the good of a minority elite.
Let's also remember Einstein backed socialism as opposed capitalism and not only Einstein but possibly Plato as well.

Well Communism hasn't failed - look at China!
It is still a Communist country and look at it's economic transformation : of course these guys were trading centuries ago and the entreprenurial spirit has always been in the Chinese psyche.

With regard to USSR : I've been fortunate enough to meet a lot of Russian people through business mostly and whenever we chat socially, I am very impressed with their knowledge and their intelligence.
You're correct, the soviet education system was superb.
Their work in the field of engineering, for example, is only matched by the Germans.
And the Russians too have a great entreprenurial talent too : look at how many new former soviet companies have sprung up and are looking to be quoted on FTSE, DOW etc.

I do agree with your point that Gorbachov was a very farsighted guy and he did want to have a more mixed economy.
Unfortunately because the USSR had relied for so long on a centrally planned economy that by the time he got to power any chance of altering the economy and preserving the political policy were doomed.

 

[sogood]

Well Communism hasn't failed - look at China!

That irritates those old cold war warriors to no end...

But seriously, I don't think neither Russia nor China ran true communism even during their revolutionary heydays. So much of that communism ideal depended on the individual being selfless. As it turn out, there's very few true selfless people on this planet. But being selfish worked in the capitalistic system.

I do agree with your point that Gorbachov was a very farsighted guy and he did want to have a more mixed economy.
Unfortunately because the USSR had relied for so long on a centrally planned economy that by the time he got to power any chance of altering the economy and preserving the political policy were doomed.

Obviously insufficiently farsighted. In many way, I see him being somewhat naive. As for Yeltson, that was a joke.

 

[Carrera]

It's not so much I'm a communist sympathiser as I just figure the running of a country needs to be planned just as we plan bike rides every day. Nobody rides without a plan after all, so why do we have all these idealistic, out-of-touch politicians with law degrees running countries? What genuine understanding does someone such as Blair have? He's a lawyer who's been trained to tell lies and make fiction sound like truth. As for Bush, he's somehow way up in the clouds and disconnected.
I suppose I may overdo the knocking of America routine a bit every so often but you should hear me get going on Europe too. To be honest, I'm far from happy about how Europe is being managed as well but will spare you all the details.
There is hope for the U.S., though, if Schwarzenegger gets in. I see him as being a good bet for sensible changes. He seems like he's got some understanding of politics and a common sense grasp of his profession as a public servant.

I think your a smart guy Carerra. Also obviously a communist sympathizer, which I don't hold against you. But I think you are using very weird news stories from America, and then assuming that this is normal life here. These news stories are typically aired because they are shocking and usually end up with a majority backlash. To profile the whole country from this paltry anecdotal evidence is fallacious and reeks of cherry-picking to make a point.

Yes there is hypocrisy in the US. Yes it isn't a perfect country. Yes, many of the people can be deluded for awhile. But overall, the mechanisms of free speech, democracy, separation of church and state, liberty, limited presidential reign, etc. keep the cart from falling too far off the tracks. Once these elements are subverted by those in power, the corrupted end-product is guaranteed, as we've seen throughout history, in other fallen nations.

 

[Carrera]

"To profile the whole country from this paltry anecdotal evidence is fallacious and reeks of cherry-picking to make a point."

There are lots of things about America I like: The people are polite and generally valued in Europe as tourists as they don't drink and shout in the streets as some Europeans do. The girls are attractive and bubbly in certain zones of the country. I do notice there's a huge wave of patriotism flowing since 9/11 as the terrorism incident caused a lot of shock and disbelief. I think Bush knew how to exploit such a situation and but now I see the pole ratings are going against him.
I think Schwarzenegger would be a far better option.

I think your a smart guy Carerra. Also obviously a communist sympathizer, which I don't hold against you. But I think you are using very weird news stories from America, and then assuming that this is normal life here. These news stories are typically aired because they are shocking and usually end up with a majority backlash. To profile the whole country from this paltry anecdotal evidence is fallacious and reeks of cherry-picking to make a point.

Yes there is hypocrisy in the US. Yes it isn't a perfect country. Yes, many of the people can be deluded for awhile. But overall, the mechanisms of free speech, democracy, separation of church and state, liberty, limited presidential reign, etc. keep the cart from falling too far off the tracks. Once these elements are subverted by those in power, the corrupted end-product is guaranteed, as we've seen throughout history, in other fallen nations.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Well Communism hasn't failed - look at China!
It is still a Communist country and look at it's economic transformation : of course these guys were trading centuries ago and the entreprenurial spirit has always been in the Chinese psyche.

What part of today's China is communist? The fact that it is run by the Communist Party. China has privatised most of its state-owned industries, has thriving stock markets in Shanghai and Hong Kong, and has some of the world's richest businesspeople within it. As you said, China has a history of global trade before the communist takeover, and over the last 20 years has been slowly edging back towards a full market economy.

With regard to USSR : I've been fortunate enough to meet a lot of Russian people through business mostly and whenever we chat socially, I am very impressed with their knowledge and their intelligence.
You're correct, the soviet education system was superb.

Lim, do you think that you were meeting a normal Russian when you conversed with your Russian international business connections? In any case, the USSR may have done really well in educating their children in math and engineering. It would have been a little easier for them because they wouldn't have learned much else about the outside world at school. Your points about the education system are missing the big point. The communist socio-economic system was/is a complete disaster. The people were probably really nice and smart, and the countryside was probably beautiful in summer, and there were probably some really cool rockets made, but the economic system was a down-spiralling lead-hulled sinking ship.

And the Russians too have a great entreprenurial talent too : look at how many new former soviet companies have sprung up and are looking to be quoted on FTSE, DOW etc.

Entrepreneurial spirit and a system where everyone gets the same piece of the pie irrespective of risk or effort are mutually exclusive. You can't have your cake and eat it. Where was this entrepreneurial spirit in the 50's, 60's and 70's? ........Downtrodden.

I do agree with your point that Gorbachov was a very farsighted guy and he did want to have a more mixed economy.
Unfortunately because the USSR had relied for so long on a centrally planned economy that by the time he got to power any chance of altering the economy and preserving the political policy were doomed.

Um ....Centrally planned economy is the central thesis of communism....Move political policy away from that and you are not a communist country aymore.

 

[sogood]

What part of today's China is communist?...

Those aging Yank cold warriors will still call them communists.

The fact is, the communist party was able to rebuild the country from a weakling (in early 20th century) to that of a world power house. The fact that communism suited the early phase of country's development and was able to transition appropriately in recent decades is worth quite something.