A Green Wants to Reduce the Numbr of Humans on Earth

[djolds1]

dj,

I agree with your points except one. Iraq.

I don't believe it is/was a mistake.

Using it as a lever to change the culture of the Middle East (a very long process to be sure) is working.

The American People are afflicted with a consistent weakness. As a society, we have a permanent case of Attention Deficit Disorder. Our mentality is not given to long duration projects. And neither are our governmental institutions. Four years, max.

The bipartisan consensus on the Cold War was breaking down by the early-mid '60s. That came to a head in '68, the detenteistas lost credibility with Jimmah, and the Great Hardas... er... Communicator carried matters to conclusion as vengeance for the humiliation of Vietnam. In no small part we rolled lucky.

Betting on a Long Term Project is unwise when it is the US.

It may not work in the long run. I still think it was worth a shot (or an Army as the case may be).

After the quick and impressive victory in Afghanistan, we needed a follow-on. The air of "what next?" was palpable at the time, and Iraq was the obvious target. Saddam had been sticking his finger in the American eye for a decade, and the recycles from Daddy's Administration wanted a chance to purge their decade's worth of embarrassment.

It certainly paid dividends at first. The Ceder Revolution in Lebanon, Libya dropping its nuke program, Iran apparently shutting down its entire nuke program until mid '04. Syria & Iran making nice and even providing intel assistance. And then the three years of "stay the course," in which most of those gains evaporated.

And if Obama cuts and runs on 22 Jan 2009, circumstances will be FAR worse than had we not gone in. There were better targets for suppressing the Salafi and Shiia Islamist movements.

[djolds1]

We started in Iraq with an experience deficit. The only way to overcome that is experience. At all levels.

BTW the disasters of 2004, 05, and 06 prepared the way for the success of 07. The Iraqi people got a hard taste of their "saviors" and decided the Americans were the lesser evil.

I and some friends of mine on another list were anticipating a surge of some sort in the immediate aftermath of the '04 campaign. The need to change course was obvious, but admitting weakness in that year was fatal.

It seemed simple. Sack Rumsnamera as a symbol, change strategies. And its need was widely obvious.

And all these idiots can do is chant "stay the course," try to screw the conservative base with David Souter Mk2 (aka Harriet Miers), and fubar the test of Katrina beyond all imagining. IIRC Shrub flew OVER NOLA at one point during the crisis, before visiting. Moronic uber alles.

Hell, in '06 Shrub was too stupid to sack Rumsnamera _before_ the election. Would've saved 10+ Congresscritter seats and 1 or 2 Senatecritters. The sacking was already in the works.

There is no way Iraqis could have learned that lesson without our incompetence. I'm not saying it was deliberate. I'm say is we have taken advantage of our mistakes. That is superior generalship. What we had until 2007 was average generalship - no win but no loss.

It has taken a while but we have found our Grant. Or look at WW2. Kasserine, Anzio, etc. These things take time.

And instead of having four years to try to fight the campaign in the proper manner, we have only 1.75. Not good. There are very good odds that American Will fails at noon on 21 Jan, 2009.

Duane

[MSimon]

dj,

Thank the Maker the Rs are running against Democrats. Of course the Democrats probably take the opposite view. :-)

My view in 2004? If Bush won that election the team that won in '08 would be stuck with Iraq. I still believe that.

No matter what the Ds promise they can't afford to turn Iraq into a civil war. Bad politics. The anti-war movement is not as strong as it was in '72.

And we have the intertubes.

[djolds1]

Turkey is no economic powerhouse.

Money is the lubricant that dissolves tribes. Think of how hard it was to marry outside your tribe in America of 1900. Think of how easy it is now.

That's not tribe. That's ethnicity.

Clans are how society is organized in most Muslim lands. They are the fundamental unit of society, not the nuclear family. Basic functions of society are managed by them. Work is allocated, welfare is provided for, marriage is authorized, justice is administered. It is a mini-state unto itself. Trying to merge it into the wider body of institutions and bureaucracies necessary to run a modern capitalist economy is neigh unto impossible. It is sovereign unto itself, and with its almost mafia-like insular and blood-family nature, it will not give that power up.

Civil society is something very different. Nuclear families are the fundamental unit. Private and public corporate bodies (churches, utilities, firms, public bureaucracies) provide the services and functions. People operate in a broad-based public sphere of interlocking corporate bodies. The conflicts between the corporate units provide open space within which we can maintain individual liberty. Multiple ethnicities can easily coexist and merge within a single civil society.

East Asia is more collectivist, but they have traditions of competing corporate bodies that make adaptation to the capitalist commerce model possible, albeit more state- directed mercantilist. South Asia is damned lucky to have been a British colony for several centuries. The necessary habits of mind rubbed off. With the Hindus anyway, which reinforces my earlier point. Africa wasn't colonized long enough for the same to occur.

[MSimon]

Which says that we may be at it 100 years.

BTW the cell phone is liquefying that tribalness. Slowly - over time.

Globalization helps too. It is harder to compete if you HAVE to hire your brother-in-law.

[djolds1]

dj,

Duane

And what is the "M" in M. Simon? You apparently prefer to go by Simon.

Thank the Maker the Rs are running against Democrats. Of course the Democrats probably take the opposite view.

This is a Democratic year. That's still the way to bet.

The Republican Party declared war on the conservative base in early '07 with amnesty, instead of trying to make up with the base in the aftermath of the '06 spanking. The base remains dispirited, and I am not optimistic of turnout.

One friend who I had thought was hardcore GOP has dropped out of the Party and is now rooting for its death in the fashion of the Whigs in 1856 ("Kill the Elephant and Birth an Eagle"). I do not disagree with him in principle.

My view in 2004? If Bush won that election the team that won in '08 would be stuck with Iraq. I still believe that.

The Dem candidates have committed themselves HARD to rapid pullout. Not drawdown and long term moderate-level presence as in Korea. Cut and run. Hard to back down. And Obama's core of support, except for the black community, are nearly all antiwar.

No matter what the Ds promise they can't afford to turn Iraq into a civil war. Bad politics. The anti-war movement is not as strong as it was in '72.

They seemed quite satisfied with choppers at the Saigon embassy in '75. I see a desire from the Boomer Left to get one last shot at reliving their glory years.

And we have the intertubes.

Que???

Duane

[tonybarry]

Hello Duane,
Just a note. If MSimon wishes to be known as Simon, that's OK on Talk-Polywell. We generally don't ask for personal names. If such are volunteered, that's fine.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[MSimon]

Duane,

I don't care what you call me. I spent years on usenet. I've been called worse.

1. The Saigon Government could keep everything hushed up until the boat people (which is what changed my mind on the wisdom of not supporting the South).

2. It will not be easy to keep the mass murder of civilians in Iraq quiet. Too many cell phones, digital cameras, digital recorders, etc.

3. Politicians lie. Many times the big lie.

4. Congress makes the laws and appropriates the money. If people don't like "amnesty" their Congress critter is the one to blame.

5. Potentially setting fire to the world's oil supply because people are mad at a political Party seems rather stupid. As Einstein is reputed to have said it is the one element in the universe more abundant than hydrogen. So I shouldn't be surprised.

6. Unfortunately only about 10% of the people give a darn about policy. So we get candidates for other reasos.

7. The Rrepublican candidate is a product of open primaries. Which has its good points and bad points.

8. If the Republican wins the blocks that didn't support him will have no seat at the table. Even more true for Rs in general if the Ds win.

9. Re: war and peace - Blue Dog Democrats have been a thorn in the side of the D party since the '06 election.

10. Intertubes is what some Congress critter called the Internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... intertubes

[djolds1]

Duane,

I don't care what you call me. I spent years on usenet. I've been called worse.

I prefer to address people properly, by name as well as title if appropriate, or by the handle they prefer on the net. Manners.

Apologies if I violated board protocol by asking.

1. The Saigon Government could keep everything hushed up until the boat people (which is what changed my mind on the wisdom of not supporting the South).

2. It will not be easy to keep the mass murder of civilians in Iraq quiet. Too many cell phones, digital cameras, digital recorders, etc.

3. Politicians lie. Many times the big lie.

(shrug)

People have a wonderful capacity for self-deception. I see no blocks to the Hard Left thinking happy- happy joy- joy thoughts until a week after the whole thing blows up and they finally "get it."

The Shrubery were told by many quarters that they needed to go in with a force twice the size, refused to do so for ideological and theoretical reasons, and then refused to admit error for 3.5 years. The Hard Left is at least as bull headed and wears a much brighter prescription of rose- tinted mirrorshades.

4. Congress makes the laws and appropriates the money. If people don't like "amnesty" their Congress critter is the one to blame.

Some of the GOPhers told the party base that they were racists and traitors during Amnesty. Hatred over that might be lessening, but the perception that the party leadership declared war on its membership remains IMO.

I am not optimistic about turnout.

5. Potentially setting fire to the world's oil supply because people are mad at a political Party seems rather stupid. As Einstein is reputed to have said it is the one element in the universe more abundant than hydrogen. So I shouldn't be surprised.

Bull headedness + rose- tinted mirrorshades.

Never underestimate the capacity for human stupidity.

7. The Republican candidate is a product of open primaries. Which has its good points and bad points.

8. If the Republican wins the blocks that didn't support him will have no seat at the table. Even more true for Rs in general if the Ds win.

I don't know if that matters.

Economics has been off the table since 1978. The only issues the parties deliver on are social issues. And if the base sees McCain (champion of amnesty) as no different than a Dem on that front...

9. Re: war and peace - Blue Dog Democrats have been a thorn in the side of the D party since the '06 election.

And they are the swing, the fulcrum of decision. Drop that power to join a party that is at war with itself? No chance.

10. Intertubes is what some Congress critter called the Internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... intertubes

Odd. Thanks.

Duane

[MSimon]

Duane,

Both Parties are at war with themselves. They have lost coherence.

[djolds1]

Duane,

Both Parties are at war with themselves. They have lost coherence.

True.

But GOPhers more than DEMs, IMO. For now, anyway.

Both are trending toward greater and greater instability, however.

[Keegan]

My point is that some of my politics may parallel yours, but you have an incumbent president who practically stole an election.

Not really. The system is set up as an electoral college. The Founders didn't trust the people and set up a system one step removed. It won't change, as it gives additional power to the smaller States.

Gore asked for a recount. The recount went to Bush. The (Heavily Democratic) State Supreme Court stepped in and tried to keep recounting going until the "right" result popped out. The SCOTUS stepped in and properly shut things down since the process had been properly carried out. And note that Our Glorious Shrub was reelected in 2004.

Duane, its ok, you dont have to explain it to me.

I already know how simple and logical the US electroral system is.....

[djolds1]

My point is that some of my politics may parallel yours, but you have an incumbent president who practically stole an election.

Not really. The system is set up as an electoral college. The Founders didn't trust the people and set up a system one step removed. It won't change, as it gives additional power to the smaller States.

Gore asked for a recount. The recount went to Bush. The (Heavily Democratic) State Supreme Court stepped in and tried to keep recounting going until the "right" result popped out. The SCOTUS stepped in and properly shut things down since the process had been properly carried out. And note that Our Glorious Shrub was reelected in 2004.

Duane, its ok, you dont have to explain it to me.

The electoral system?

States are alloted electoral votes based on the their number of Representatives and Senators. Two Senators per state (100 total), 435 Representatives in total. 535 Senators and Congresscritters in all. The Representatives are assigned per state population once per decade, with the exception that no state may fall below one Representative.

If the President was elected on a popular basis, the voting power of each state would be roughly the same as its number of Representatives.

1/435 at smallest.

But under the electoral system, the smallest states get 3/535, almost 2.5 times the voting power of their raw numbers alone.

[Keegan]

But under the electoral system, the smallest states get 3/535, almost 2.5 times the voting power of their raw numbers alone.

Im guessing the smaller states;

- have a less learned populous (because the "cream" naturally migrates to bigger better things)

- would have a much higher television(hypnobox) to internet connection ratio. (free thinking ratio)

- would be possibly more religious (hence influence through church)

- would be much more easier to economically manipulate/control/corrupt

........So lets give them 2.5 X voting power !

Sweet ..... now i know why you guys are in trouble

Im not picking fights or anything. It just seems the talk-polywell has spawned some of the most enlightened conversation on the net. Its nice to see how you guys think and its amazing how the Pacific Ocean can alter ones perception so wildly. Peace.

And incase any missed it ............ The U.S. electoral system explained

[Nanos]

I'm a big fan of enlightened conversation myself too.

At the moment locally I'm puzzled whether me making lots of noise in the local media has changed a policy for the better, or whether my input had no effect at all..

As the politicans/etc. involved very quickly refused to debate with me, or otherwise engage me in conversation (ignoring emails/etc.) it would appear I'll never know if I had any effectt or not as they won't speak to me now!

The public is very isolated here from dealing with authority (Perhaps the only way to get answers is to sleep with people..) and knowing just what is happening and why.

Even so, I don't hold up any real hope that any politican anytime in the next few hundred years will do much at all to help people in a realistic way, looking at the last 40 years I've been here, nothing much has changed for the better..

I tend to look towards private enterprize as the driving force for change and development and goverment as just something that gets in the way and is a drain on resources for no particularly purpose than jobs for the boys..


What interests me the most is practical solutions I can action which make a real difference, whoever comes up with them is of little relevence to me, I just want to make the world a better place!