<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd question that. You are not the richest country in the world ( per capita ), you are not the most productive country in the world ( per capita GDP ), you are not the most educated country in the world. There is a pile of OECD reports that rank several countries above the US as destinations to live in. Your current prosperity is being propped up by militiary and economic hegemony. The petro dollar and the refusal to support a trans-national world currency base allow you to run a horrifically bad balance of trade with little or no consequences. You consume much more per capita than anywhere else in the world, and waste most of what is left over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, this is the thing that really gets to me. Just because a few tiny nations like Luxembourg, Norway, and Ireland do better economically doesn't mean their economies are better than ours. Our productivity remains the best among the great and superpowers of the world. Our economic growth rates far surpass the Eurozone average. We have more technological patents per capita. We have 8/10 of the world's best universities. Even the staunchest anti-American elites in Western European countries dream of sending their kids to universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
And life for the average American is pretty damn good. Consumer goods are the cheapest in the US (thanks to massive economies of scale only capable in countries such as the USA or even China for that matter) relative to income.
Our current prosperity has everything to do with our massive population, abundance of natural resources, liberal trade policy, and a capitalist-leaning mixed economy that takes place in a stable political system. While I do agree that our petrodollar is letting us abuse our monetary hegemony (the USD is still by far the world's reserve currency), in the end we'll pay for that, or lessen our abuse towards more acceptable levels. And just what exactly is economic hegemony? We barter as equals before countries like the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and any other member of the trillion dollar club. The City of London is just as powerful a financial force as Wall Street is in New York.
Our military hegemony doesn't account for jack ish of our economic prosperity. Sure, arms exports account for a large part of our government revenue, but it's not our fault you guys can't build military aircraft worth a damn.
Look, the point is our system is functional and eventually does the right thing when it's absolutely necessary. Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other alternatives." It's time to get real and get with it. The USA government isn't perfect. No government is. At best it remains a good source of entertainment and controversy, but as long as the utilities are provided for, and my mail arrives no more than 10 minutes late, the government is functioning and above all, <b>stable</b>.
Political gridlock and special interests are actually very important parts of our system. The thing is EVERYBODY has a special interest. And as long as everybody's fighting out over stuff that actually doesn't matter, the system will work even though nobody's trying to make it work.
Edit: Whoever said the Soviet Union was stable and prosperous was a ###### moron. In Soviet Russia, having a car was a symbol of the unacknowledged upper class.
Edit2: Do you even know what causality means? Jesus christ do we have a pseudo-intellectual alert.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1628886:date=May 24 2007, 04:31 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ May 24 2007, 04:31 AM) [snapback]1628886[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'd question that. You are not the richest country in the world ( per capita ), you are not the most productive country in the world ( per capita GDP ), you are not the most educated country in the world. There is a pile of OECD reports that rank several countries above the US as destinations to live in. Your current prosperity is being propped up by militiary and economic hegemony. The petro dollar and the refusal to support a trans-national world currency base allow you to run a horrifically bad balance of trade with little or no consequences. You consume much more per capita than anywhere else in the world, and waste most of what is left over.
Don't get me wrong, I love the fundamentals of American democracy and the innovation and creativity your nation has bestowed on the world is possibly only equalled by France or Britain. But right now, the suits are calling the shots, and they most certainly are not a government of the people, and most certainly are not a government for the people. It probably isn't worth getting into the detail of why exactly the Bush administration is not a government by the people. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the end of the day, who's the only superpower in the world? We're not being "propped up by military and economic hegemony," I see those as the only two things that really signify a massive power. That <i>is</i> our power, much like it was for Britain in its time, France in its time, so on so forth. No one has too many delusions of grandeur here, I think everyone understands that our system isn't perfect, but it seems to have worked for a good while now. The next election will probably sort out a lot of the problems currently affecting the government, namely that we have a Republican right now who's trying to run a big government, which makes little sense.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2007
Adj, my comment was on the American political system and how it equates to quality of life. I'm not disputing that you are the most powerful country in the world. I do hope you are right about the next election correcting the mistakes of Bush. I would tend to agree with you, but I do not believe the US election is contested fairly any more, so all bets are off.
Rapier7, before I respond to your post let us clear up a definition.
" Quality of life is the notion of human welfare (well-being) measured by social indicators rather than by "quantitative” measures of income and production."
Right, to your actual points.
You went and listed the three countries listed above the US on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita" target="_blank">this page</a>, so I'm assuming you are using it as a reference, or using the same source material. The OECD quality of life report is a different study altogether and there are 7 countries listed above the US, including the three you mentioned, but also countries like Canada, Australia, and Japan. I haven't done the numbers, but the countries above you would probably combine to produce an equivalent population.
In relation to this discussion, the point is that the apathy people feel about politics will start to change if people feel a downward trend on their quality of life, which has been accelerating recently due to Bush administration policies and inaction.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And life for the average American is pretty damn good. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nobody disputes that, but I'd reason it could be a lot better.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Our current prosperity has everything to do with our massive population <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your population isn't that large. The EU has 1.3 times as many people. The OECD predict that this year will be the first year that both the EU and Japan will surpass US economic growth. Remember, we are really talking about the short term view in this topic, and things in the US have started to slide. The imminent devaluation of the dollar is a panic reaction and goes against the grain of US foreign policy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Our military hegemony doesn't account for jack ish of our economic prosperity. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh really? So, switching Iraqi Oil back to dollars from euros had nothing to do with maintaining a stable petro dollar.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The USA government isn't perfect. No government is. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nobody is asking for perfect, just improvement. The absurdly low approval ratings for the Bush administration would suggest that most of US think Bush has failed to deliver to the full potential of the US system.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Political gridlock and special interests are actually very important parts of our system. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, you assume that because you make progress there is no room for improvement. Nobody is suggesting that you are going backwards or failing to make any progress, but you certainly aren't making as much progress as you can. Even Europe with it's huge social expense is managing to generate more economic activity than you are.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Edit: Whoever said the Soviet Union was stable and prosperous was a ###### moron. In Soviet Russia, having a car was a symbol of the unacknowledged upper class. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, isn't the existence of an upper class proof that it was prosperous. The question levelled against the USSR was not that it didn't generate economic activity, but that it didn't distribute the profits equally as it was idealogically supposed to do. Anyway, I'm not in a position to defend the USSR, nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand.
Also, can you please tone your language down. It is obvious you are getting heated on this topic.
<!--quoteo(post=1628962:date=May 24 2007, 05:52 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 24 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]1628962[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Look, the point is our system is functional and eventually does the right thing when it's absolutely necessary. Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other alternatives."[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can I quote you on that when U.S. troops leave Iraq? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2007
Europe has nothing to do with this discussion.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I find it amusing that you base your entire criteria on the American level. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to accept that someone can be anti-bush without being anti-american.
This topic is about the Apathy of the American public. There are four broad interpretations of this
1) The American people are apathetic.
2) Bush is doing a good job, so people have no reason to be disgruntled.
3) Bush is doing a bad job but people see no alternative.
4) people will change the US regime in the next election.
I'm assuming based on your difficult to follow 'argument' that you subscribe to option 2.
In which case you need to direct your angst not at Europe, but at the US citizens who subscribe to options 1, 3 and 4. To me it seems that you simply want to call people names when your reasoning fails to deliver the results you want.
<!--quoteo(post=1628974:date=May 24 2007, 12:19 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ May 24 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]1628974[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Europe has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to accept that someone can be anti-bush without being anti-american.
This topic is about the Apathy of the American public. There are four broad interpretations of this
1) The American people are apathetic.
2) Bush is doing a good job, so people have no reason to be disgruntled.
3) Bush is doing a bad job but people see no alternative.
4) people will change the US regime in the next election. I'm assuming based on your difficult to follow 'argument' that you subscribe to option 2.
In which case you need to direct your angst not at Europe, but at the US citizens who subscribe to options 1, 3 and 4. To me it seems that you simply want to call people names when your reasoning fails to deliver the results you want.
Anyway, I'm out of this discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going for option 5: "40% of the public is totally digruntled with the Bush administration, 40% is totally disgruntled with the Democratic opposition, and its the apathetic last 20% who don't care about any of it who will ultimately be responsible for deciding the fate of our country in the next election". Its a little scary when you put it that way. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Divide all those stats in half to reflect the actual voter turnout ( 54% in the last election ) and it gets even more depressing <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
edited May 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipedia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wikipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2006_report" target="_blank">The Human Development Index (HDI)</a> is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.[1] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1628972:date=May 24 2007, 07:14 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 24 2007, 07:14 PM) [snapback]1628972[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I find it amusing that you base your entire criteria on the American level.
Maybe when the United States of Europe becomes a reality you can finally have something to be proud of. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You make it sound as if such a union would be desirable.
<!--quoteo(post=1628962:date=May 24 2007, 10:52 AM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 24 2007, 10:52 AM) [snapback]1628962[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Okay, this is the thing that really gets to me. Just because a few tiny nations like Luxembourg, Norway, and Ireland do better economically doesn't mean their economies are better than ours. Our productivity remains the best among the great and superpowers of the world. Our economic growth rates far surpass the Eurozone average. We have more technological patents per capita. We have 8/10 of the world's best universities. Even the staunchest anti-American elites in Western European countries dream of sending their kids to universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
And life for the average American is pretty damn good. Consumer goods are the cheapest in the US (thanks to massive economies of scale only capable in countries such as the USA or even China for that matter) relative to income.
Our current prosperity has everything to do with our massive population, abundance of natural resources, liberal trade policy, and a capitalist-leaning mixed economy that takes place in a stable political system. While I do agree that our petrodollar is letting us abuse our monetary hegemony (the USD is still by far the world's reserve currency), in the end we'll pay for that, or lessen our abuse towards more acceptable levels. And just what exactly is economic hegemony? We barter as equals before countries like the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and any other member of the trillion dollar club. The City of London is just as powerful a financial force as Wall Street is in New York.
Our military hegemony doesn't account for jack ish of our economic prosperity. Sure, arms exports account for a large part of our government revenue, but it's not our fault you guys can't build military aircraft worth a damn.
Look, the point is our system is functional and eventually does the right thing when it's absolutely necessary. Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other alternatives." It's time to get real and get with it. The USA government isn't perfect. No government is. At best it remains a good source of entertainment and controversy, but as long as the utilities are provided for, and my mail arrives no more than 10 minutes late, the government is functioning and above all, <b>stable</b>.
Political gridlock and special interests are actually very important parts of our system. The thing is EVERYBODY has a special interest. And as long as everybody's fighting out over stuff that actually doesn't matter, the system will work even though nobody's trying to make it work.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post has perfectly typified the response of exactly whom the topic describes - an apathetic american.
You seem content that your personal situation is stable and material demands satisfied. You seem to believe that as long as those immediate objectives are satisfied, the government should not be criticised.
To paraphrase your points:
<b>"Oh well, no one's perfect" </b> is frankly a terrible response to criticism. You and others like you should question how things can be improved rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo. Just because some things are going well, does not mean everything else is.
<b> "Our system eventually does the right thing when its absolutely necessary". </b> Again, what a terrible response. "We'll get it right in the end, don't worry about the temporary screw ups." You should not be waiting for the time when its "absolutely necessary" to do the "right thing". You should be questioning why isn't the right thing being done by your government and why isn't it being done <i>now.</i>
<b>"Our economic growth is the best and its way better than Europe"</b>. Firstly, sound economic growth does not cure your government's numerous failings and flaws in foreign policy, environmental issues, civil rights or anything else for that matter. Secondly, the irrelevant comparison to Europe smacks of an immature attitude of "oh we're better than you so shut up you've got no right to say anything".
Just because people criticise the US does not mean they think that their own country is the best, better or even any good at all. People like me criticise the US because they see a global superpower implementing bad policies. People criticise the US people, and more specifically people like you, because you seem to blindly accept them.
To reiterate the point, we're not saying our countries/policies/whatever are better. And more importantly, by admitting that we do not waive our moral right to criticise yours. In a time when the US is so globally dominant and interferes (for good or bad) so greatly in people's lives all over the world, it is all the more justified for the actions of the US to be scrutinised as much as possible, whatever the source of that criticism. You shouldn't dismiss the criticism in favour of blind patriotism, but understand it, learn from it and ask yourself why you are not doing the same.
So when the state controlled media of some Arab nation criticizes our government for censoring something like...the wardrobe malfunction, we're supposed to take it as constructive criticism?
If your economic system isn't healthier than ours and you're criticizing our economic policy, that's retarded. Criticize your own first. If your political system isn't any better than ours, then criticize your own before you criticize ours. If your government's policy isn't any better than ours, criticize yours first before you do ours.
Frankly, anti-American sentiment is an obsession. You damn us when we do and you damn us when we don't. It's not criticism. It's a blind dogma. We're villified for everything we do. And everything time we start slipping from the top of the charts, it's gleefully announced in some European news medium.
"The end of full employment in the United States" was a February 2001 headline from Le Monde when unemployment rose from 4.4% to 5.5%. This was at the same time the French government was lauding itself for bringing unemployment DOWN to 9%.
That's just one of many examples.
Frankly, having power does not mean we should be held to a higher standard. By that same reasoning, a tin pot dictator enslaving his own people is acceptable, since it's just a local, weak, failed state. This is roughly the same reasoning in Norway that a rich person who speeds should be fined more than a person only making 40k a year. The charge should fit the crime and intent, not the material position of the person commiting it.
Constructive criticism of the United States, its government, domestic and foreign policy is fine. And the most rational criticism of the United States usually comes from WITHIN our own country. We just get insults and jeers from people from other countries.
Criticism of the American people is pretty much retarded. There is no average American person. Pick any American walking on the street and you'll find people from all walks of life, from every ethnicity, social and economic background, and political view. There are millionaire businessmen with incredibly socialist views. Likewise, a working/middle class 40 hour work week joe making 30-40k per year will insist on a smaller and less intrusive government. They can be white, black, yellow, brown or a mix of all of the above and in any economic and any social position. Labeling the American people as apathetic, ignorant, unintelligent, sheep, fat, or any negative or even positive stereotype is plain retarded.
The entire point is that criticism needs to be specific, rational, and above all, <b>informed</b>.
There probably isn't a person here (except me, of course) who knows how a Presidential election is decided if no candidate secures the majority of electoral votes without consulting Wikipedia. Even fewer have even a functional understanding of how our judicial system works at the local, state, and Federal level. Even specific policy has so many facets that none of us are able to correctly comment or criticize on it. The more an "expert" on the Middle East knows, the less he is able to understand. Every policy expert has a very narrow understanding that nobody is completely right or completely wrong.
For the majority of people (Europeans or Americans, doesn't matter), what they know they get directly from their preferred source of media, be it television, internet news website, blog, Wikipedia, or even this very forum. The best advice I can give is to look for you and yours, because if everybody thinks selfishly, the system will work even though nobody is trying to make it work.
Quit caring about the US. Your own government is far more important for your own life. And your local government has more ability to screw your life over than your national government. The only thing that really matters is you and the people around you. Who here (who isn't in the US armed forces) is honestly directly affected by the US government unless they're paying Federal taxes?
I like this whole "we, the american people" in eveyr paragraph, when the ones forming the policies and making the decisions is backed by a whooping twenty something percent of your population. You really need to drop this whole "it's a competition between Us and Them" thing, and wake up.
<!--quoteo(post=1629032:date=May 24 2007, 05:41 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 24 2007, 05:41 PM) [snapback]1629032[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There probably isn't a person here (except me, of course) who knows how a Presidential election is decided if no candidate secures the majority of electoral votes without consulting Wikipedia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ooh! I know! Its...its... *thinks really hard* Right, the Senate! The US Senate elects a winner if there is no one with 51% of the electoral college. Of course, that would require a 3rd party candidate to actually win electoral votes, which has happened all of what, once? Probably when Teddy Roosevelt ran for reelection, after deciding not to run in the primaries at all. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even fewer have even a functional understanding of how our judicial system works at the local, state, and Federal level. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you get "even fewer" than "no one except me"? Well, I suppose there's one obvious answer. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1629032:date=May 25 2007, 12:41 AM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 25 2007, 12:41 AM) [snapback]1629032[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Frankly, having power does not mean we should be held to a higher standard. By that same reasoning, a tin pot dictator enslaving his own people is acceptable, since it's just a local, weak, failed state. This is roughly the same reasoning in Norway that a rich person who speeds should be fined more than a person only making 40k a year. The charge should fit the crime and intent, not the material position of the person commiting it.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A speeding ticket is not a charge though, it's a fine. Speeding is not a privilege that can be purchased at the cost of a ticket, it's an offense that is punished with a ticket. The whole concept of punishing crimes is based on the prevailing belief that laws need to be enforced. But if the punishment for speeding would be, say, having the police officer give you a disgruntled look, would instances of speeding go up? I'm going to venture a guess and say yes.
Punishment has to fit the crime and intent, but it has to be actual punishment. If a guy makes 20k a year and has to cough up, say, 200 bucks for a speeding ticket (1% of his income), he is going to feel that. If a guy makes 400k a year and has to cough up 200 bucks for a speeding ticket (0.05% of his income), it won't really affect him. If he speeds constantly and gets caught, on average, every 18.25 days, his punishment will at the end of the year be equal to that of the 20k earner who got a single ticket - both will have lost 1% of their income on speeding tickets. If he earns 7.3 million a year, he could get a speeding ticket every single day for the cost of 1% of his income.
The economist Steven David Levitt will tell you that incentives are a powerful motivational force. One example he cites is a kindergarten in Israel that had a problem with parents picking their kids up late, forcing one of the employees to stay after hours with the children. They instituted a small fine for late pickups, but to their surprise found the amount of late pickups to <i>increase</i>. The reason, in hindsight, is simple: The fine had been set too low, and the message it sent was that parents could simply compensate monetarily for late pickups. And since the fine was low (and thus affordable), it wasn't a sufficient incentive against late pickups.
In summary, that's the reasoning for fining people according to their income: Making sure that the fine remains a punishment, and doesn't come to be viewed as a fee by those who can afford it.
<!--quoteo(post=1629061:date=May 24 2007, 06:48 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 24 2007, 06:48 PM) [snapback]1629061[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And, Cwxf, it's the House. Not the Senate. Close one, though! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*looks it up*
Oh right, the House elects the President, and the Senate elects the Vice President. Not necessarily from the same ticket. Forgot that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1628952:date=May 24 2007, 07:50 AM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ May 24 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]1628952[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The problem is, the government simply can't be knowledgeable about everything. Take lawmakers for example. They have to pass or reject laws about topics as diverse as scientific research, technology, international politics and business. No one person can be an expert on all those things. Sure they call in experts to testify, but do they really understand what's being said? I think not. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a viable solution to fix this. You work with what you got I suppose. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you can. Just find some people smarter than our current crop of idiots.
To think that anybody working as a high elected official in Washington DC is an idiot is simply buying into all that retarded cant.
You'd be hard pressed to find any Congressman, Senator, President, or Cabinet level advisor without at least a degree from a prestigious university and an incredibly shrewd analysis of political science.
They are in the business of pleasing voters, and each and every one of them can obviously swing more than 50% of the voters. They're doing their job and judging current election trends, they're doing it very well for the most part. Even Bush is intelligent. Just because he's a poor public speaker doesn't mean he's a retard.
Probably the only exception to this rule that I can think of is Dan Quayle, but he was a Vice President, and they're practically useless.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1629100:date=May 24 2007, 07:42 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ May 24 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]1629100[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> To think that anybody working as a high elected official in Washington DC is an idiot is simply buying into all that retarded cant.
You'd be hard pressed to find any Congressman, Senator, President, or Cabinet level advisor without at least a degree from a prestigious university and an incredibly shrewd analysis of political science.
They are in the business of pleasing voters, and each and every one of them can obviously swing more than 50% of the voters. They're doing their job and judging current election trends, they're doing it very well for the most part. Even Bush is intelligent. Just because he's a poor public speaker doesn't mean he's a retard.
Probably the only exception to this rule that I can think of is Dan Quayle, but he was a Vice President, and they're practically useless. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[youtube]5ir_mKso_qc[/youtube]
As the chairman of the Senate's Commerce committee, I'd expect him to know more about what the hell bill he was talking about.
Once again, examples of idiocy. There are dozens more. I hear them within 10 minutes of turning C-Span on, and no shortage of them end up on CNN or the Daily Show, to be equally poked at.
You can't honestly think that a clear majority of them are smart guys. And hell, even if they are- if the American people watched what their representative voted for more often, I could certainly think things would change more around America.
And seriously Rapier7: Do you have to resort to name calling and insults? If your argument doesn't stand its own ground without them, it doesn't stand anyone's ground.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I wouldn't worry about people without much real power not being very smart, it happens in all democracies. Elections are not fought on a broad platform, they are usually won or lost on a narrow point ( abortion, divorce, stem cell research, taxation ). This doesn't prevent a democracy from functioning. What is needed for reasonably acceptable governance is an efficient and educated executive branch. Usually, when this isn't delivered a shift would occur in public opinion, as is happening now with the Bush administration. There are polls not only showing historically low support for bush, but also historically low support for bush among people who usually vote republican. This is democracy in action, and assuming the next election isn't stolen, things *should* get corrected. This brings us back to the topic at hand: the apathy of the American public. I think it took a while for the reality of the situation to sink in, and the catalyst for that was when people realised they were lied to about the weapons Iraq had and that they were lied to when they were told the war was over. People are finally starting to realise the mess Bush and Cheney have landed them in and are also questioning the motivation for being there. Democracies don't produce perfect governments, they reject poor governments. Sit tight and wait it out.
( I say this on the day we are counting our general election votes, where yetereday's exit polls suggest a return of the incumbent coalition. Depressing really, as they have a deplorable track record on things that usually matter. *sadface* )
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Democracy in action indeed. Of course, the legislative branch <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html" target="_blank">has the same</a>, <a href="http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26914" target="_blank">if not worse</a>, approval ratings in polls as the executive branch. Considering there was a majority shift in the last election, on the surface these polls would appear schizophrenic.
In my opinion, what we're witnessing is a reassesment of the elite class in Washington. Over the last couple of years the internet has been used increasingly to parse and disect comments from politicos and the pundits are pushing (usually with gobs of money) for an environment based on angst rather than support.
There seems to be more of an enlightenment in the population recently. We've gone from the magnifying glass used by underhanded journalists to the microscope used by basement bloggers. People are having a harder time convincing themselves that politicians and their staff can be taken seriously when they address the public. Sympathetic writers on both sides can no longer cover up the shenanigans of their favorites.
This does not mean that I have hope for the general public to come to their senses and only elect non-jack### politicians, but it does explain the increased feeling of discontent.
Of course, we could also just blame it on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome" target="_blank">Bush Derangement Syndrome</a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Ah, as far as the government ideally being knowledgeable and efficient, I don't think that's a good idea. There's a reason bills progress through our system at such a slow rate of speed, costing thousands of dollars just to keep printing them out over and over again: to lessen the chance that someone can push something horrific by without anyone noticing.
An efficient government is a scary one. Just think of how many more tanks would be rolling about if it didn't cost us two in waste for every five we produced, as a completely non-based, out of my butt example. I like my governments full of sloth and resistant to change. We have enough economic troubles in the markets without our entire government polarizing and re-polarizing on issues day in and day out.
I'm at work right now, Quaanaut but when I can look at the video, I'll comment appropriately.
Look, a politician's job is to get elected. Serving people is simply a means to that end. And in places like Congress, making alliances and being on friendly terms with your colleagues is more important than your expertise when getting appointed to a committee. Considering that in the House, committees are appointed by <b>The Speaker of the House</b> and in the Senate, they are appointed by the <b>Senate Majority Leader</b>, you can easily deduce that who you know is more important than what you know. Congress operates on a very Hollywoodish scale.
Look, all those politicians had degrees in political science, law, history, or something related to American politics. They won't know much about the internet, science, economics, or anything that's actually relevant that they're passing. Bills average over 300 pages long in stipulations, caveats, and addendums. Congressman delegate their tasks to their aides and to their leaders, if you get an honest answer (from a politician? yeah right), they'll admit that half the time, they don't even know what they're voting for.
That doesn't signify stupidity or even a willful ignorance. It simply means that politicians (god forbid) don't know everything and that they aren't stupid enough to try. Most Congressmen will eventually develop a single issue that they care about pushing and they focus on that.
Calling a politician stupid is, in itself, stupid. They all know the job and they all know what to do to keep that job.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2007
Defence has turned to excuse as people try to claim incompetence is a virtue.
Rob, checks and balance should be designed into the system, not assumed as a defficiency. If you don't want quick legislation then you change your mechanisms to prevent it. You don't depend on your legislators being too stupid to do the right thing in a timely manner.
A politician's job is not just to get elected. This is exactly the apathy that Quaunaut is querying. It may be his personal priority to "mind his seat" but his job is to serve the public via the legislative process.
There is nothing stupid about calling *anyone* stupid, especially if in fact, they are stupid.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I like my governments full of sloth and resistant to change. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, your reasoning is highly fallacious. You are making the assumption that efficient and educated politicians can only be radical and not resistant to change. You are substituting incompetence for conservatism and vice versa.
<!--quoteo(post=1629188:date=May 25 2007, 10:00 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ May 25 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]1629188[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Defence has turned to excuse as people try to claim incompetence is a virtue.
Rob, checks and balance should be designed into the system, not assumed as a defficiency. If you don't want quick legislation then you change your mechanisms to prevent it. You don't depend on your legislators being too stupid to do the right thing in a timely manner.
A politician's job is not just to get elected. This is exactly the apathy that Quaunaut is querying. It may be his personal priority to "mind his seat" but his job is to serve the public via the legislative process.
There is nothing stupid about calling *anyone* stupid, especially if in fact, they are stupid. Again, your reasoning is highly fallacious. You are making the assumption that efficient and educated politicians can only be radical and not resistant to change. You are substituting incompetence for conservatism and vice versa. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not really what I'm saying at all. Checks and balances are all well and good, but they don't mean anything if parties are not given a chance to consider their options and decide what to do. The very nature of our society prevents the majority from always agreeing on everything. In a room full of hundreds who are grouped into camps of similar thought, reaching a compromise is not a simple or elegant task. It's a lengthy and tiring slugfest.
And it has to be in order to ensure that everyone can feel like they took a part in it. I won't say that the Bush administration is highly efficient; I will say they have been more efficient than some others, and we can see what happened. Regardless of whether or not we see eye to eye on the validity of the actions they have taken, can we agree that the <i>speed</i> with which they have taken them is formidable?
Also, what makes you think that people have to be incompetent for their actions to be slow? I don't want incompetent leaders, I want leaders with diverse ambitions in general. This by its nature makes the process slow. Our checks and balances make the process slow. Hundreds and thousands of hours are spent preparing a bill by people with the utmost intelligence. It then promptly gets vetoed by the president because of a small change that's trying to piggy-back on an otherwise fine bill. That's not incompetence, that's us trying to make sure that nobody pulls a fast one.
When an administration comes to power with a congressional and legislative backing, things get done, and they get done fast. While small periods of this are necessary, they also produce some unrest and strain our public. (read: now)
So, like I said, an efficient government is scary. It will not produce documentation of its efforts; it will not consult others; it will not inform the public. Not because it's necessarily evil to begin with, but because all those things cost money that could be put to better use. I don't argue that wastefulness is a good thing in general, but in this case, it can be.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Again you are confusing effiency and competency. If a lengthy and detailed debate is to be considered as part of the core remit of an elected representative, then doing that part of the process is efficient. Efficiency != expediency. Efficiency is doing the job effectively and without waste.
Anyway, I'm glad we're past the point where the Bush administration is being blindly defended and now his zealots are now simply pretending that his bad points are in fact, his good points. ( not directed at you though, Rob ).
<!--quoteo(post=1629198:date=May 25 2007, 10:27 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ May 25 2007, 10:27 AM) [snapback]1629198[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Again you are confusing effiency and competency. If a lengthy and detailed debate is to be considered as part of the core remit of an elected representative, then doing that part of the process is efficient. Efficiency != expediency. Efficiency is doing the job effectively and without waste.
Anyway, I'm glad we're past the point where the Bush administration is being blindly defended and now his zealots are now simply pretending that his bad points are in fact, his good points. ( not directed at you though, Rob ). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think I am. I mean, you can't call the amount of waste produced by my government not really waste because they're part of the process. They <b>are</b> part of the process, but they're still waste. Those resources could have been used somewhere else.
You may be right about the expediency point, but if feel that expediting a process is just a change it priority, not a change in the way the process is handled.
I guess it all depends on the way you "measure" efficiency. What I'm saying is that for a government to make the "right" decision quickly is a pie in the sky goal. Something you may strive for but should never reach because it's unstable.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Nobody is asking for the right decision to be made quickly. Just for the right decision to be made. The general debate here is that even inefficient systems produce the right result 'eventually', and the general opinion against this is that 'eventually' is not enough and that we should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard ( and certainly higher than the standard of 'just getting elected' ).
This is the apathy this topic is supposed to be about. Seriously, if all of you who are excusing the record of Bush's regime have nothing more to say than "we can't do better than this" then you are not adding to the discussion, you are in fact, providing clear evidence of the prevalence of such an attitude.
The true patriot never stops questioning his government, and never accepts pathetic excuses for a bad job.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I think it's unfortunate, Puzl, that rather than listening to and possibly even attempting to understand the perspectives provided by people who are participating in the American experience that you would prefer to characterize them as "blind" followers.
This constant inferring of thought from other posters is quickly reaching the point of being offensive. Everyone here is using their own words to express their thoughts. They certainly don't need you to do it for them.
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. They are not, however, entitled to assign an opinion to others.
Comments
Okay, this is the thing that really gets to me. Just because a few tiny nations like Luxembourg, Norway, and Ireland do better economically doesn't mean their economies are better than ours. Our productivity remains the best among the great and superpowers of the world. Our economic growth rates far surpass the Eurozone average. We have more technological patents per capita. We have 8/10 of the world's best universities. Even the staunchest anti-American elites in Western European countries dream of sending their kids to universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
And life for the average American is pretty damn good. Consumer goods are the cheapest in the US (thanks to massive economies of scale only capable in countries such as the USA or even China for that matter) relative to income.
Our current prosperity has everything to do with our massive population, abundance of natural resources, liberal trade policy, and a capitalist-leaning mixed economy that takes place in a stable political system. While I do agree that our petrodollar is letting us abuse our monetary hegemony (the USD is still by far the world's reserve currency), in the end we'll pay for that, or lessen our abuse towards more acceptable levels. And just what exactly is economic hegemony? We barter as equals before countries like the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and any other member of the trillion dollar club. The City of London is just as powerful a financial force as Wall Street is in New York.
Our military hegemony doesn't account for jack ish of our economic prosperity. Sure, arms exports account for a large part of our government revenue, but it's not our fault you guys can't build military aircraft worth a damn.
Look, the point is our system is functional and eventually does the right thing when it's absolutely necessary. Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other alternatives." It's time to get real and get with it. The USA government isn't perfect. No government is. At best it remains a good source of entertainment and controversy, but as long as the utilities are provided for, and my mail arrives no more than 10 minutes late, the government is functioning and above all, <b>stable</b>.
Political gridlock and special interests are actually very important parts of our system. The thing is EVERYBODY has a special interest. And as long as everybody's fighting out over stuff that actually doesn't matter, the system will work even though nobody's trying to make it work.
Edit: Whoever said the Soviet Union was stable and prosperous was a ###### moron. In Soviet Russia, having a car was a symbol of the unacknowledged upper class.
Edit2: Do you even know what causality means? Jesus christ do we have a pseudo-intellectual alert.
I'd question that. You are not the richest country in the world ( per capita ), you are not the most productive country in the world ( per capita GDP ), you are not the most educated country in the world. There is a pile of OECD reports that rank several countries above the US as destinations to live in. Your current prosperity is being propped up by militiary and economic hegemony. The petro dollar and the refusal to support a trans-national world currency base allow you to run a horrifically bad balance of trade with little or no consequences. You consume much more per capita than anywhere else in the world, and waste most of what is left over.
Don't get me wrong, I love the fundamentals of American democracy and the innovation and creativity your nation has bestowed on the world is possibly only equalled by France or Britain. But right now, the suits are calling the shots, and they most certainly are not a government of the people, and most certainly are not a government for the people. It probably isn't worth getting into the detail of why exactly the Bush administration is not a government by the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the end of the day, who's the only superpower in the world? We're not being "propped up by military and economic hegemony," I see those as the only two things that really signify a massive power. That <i>is</i> our power, much like it was for Britain in its time, France in its time, so on so forth. No one has too many delusions of grandeur here, I think everyone understands that our system isn't perfect, but it seems to have worked for a good while now. The next election will probably sort out a lot of the problems currently affecting the government, namely that we have a Republican right now who's trying to run a big government, which makes little sense.
Rapier7, before I respond to your post let us clear up a definition.
" Quality of life is the notion of human welfare (well-being) measured by social indicators rather than by "quantitative” measures of income and production."
Right, to your actual points.
You went and listed the three countries listed above the US on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita" target="_blank">this page</a>, so I'm assuming you are using it as a reference, or using the same source material. The OECD quality of life report is a different study altogether and there are 7 countries listed above the US, including the three you mentioned, but also countries like Canada, Australia, and Japan. I haven't done the numbers, but the countries above you would probably combine to produce an equivalent population.
In relation to this discussion, the point is that the apathy people feel about politics will start to change if people feel a downward trend on their quality of life, which has been accelerating recently due to Bush administration policies and inaction.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And life for the average American is pretty damn good.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody disputes that, but I'd reason it could be a lot better.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Our current prosperity has everything to do with our massive population
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your population isn't that large. The EU has 1.3 times as many people. The OECD predict that this year will be the first year that both the EU and Japan will surpass US economic growth. Remember, we are really talking about the short term view in this topic, and things in the US have started to slide. The imminent devaluation of the dollar is a panic reaction and goes against the grain of US foreign policy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Our military hegemony doesn't account for jack ish of our economic prosperity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh really? So, switching Iraqi Oil back to dollars from euros had nothing to do with maintaining a stable petro dollar.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The USA government isn't perfect. No government is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody is asking for perfect, just improvement. The absurdly low approval ratings for the Bush administration would suggest that most of US think Bush has failed to deliver to the full potential of the US system.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Political gridlock and special interests are actually very important parts of our system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you assume that because you make progress there is no room for improvement. Nobody is suggesting that you are going backwards or failing to make any progress, but you certainly aren't making as much progress as you can. Even Europe with it's huge social expense is managing to generate more economic activity than you are.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Edit: Whoever said the Soviet Union was stable and prosperous was a ###### moron. In Soviet Russia, having a car was a symbol of the unacknowledged upper class.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, isn't the existence of an upper class proof that it was prosperous. The question levelled against the USSR was not that it didn't generate economic activity, but that it didn't distribute the profits equally as it was idealogically supposed to do. Anyway, I'm not in a position to defend the USSR, nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand.
Also, can you please tone your language down. It is obvious you are getting heated on this topic.
[...]Look, the point is our system is functional and eventually does the right thing when it's absolutely necessary. Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other alternatives."[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can I quote you on that when U.S. troops leave Iraq? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Maybe when the United States of Europe becomes a reality you can finally have something to be proud of.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I find it amusing that you base your entire criteria on the American level.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to accept that someone can be anti-bush without being anti-american.
This topic is about the Apathy of the American public. There are four broad interpretations of this
1) The American people are apathetic.
2) Bush is doing a good job, so people have no reason to be disgruntled.
3) Bush is doing a bad job but people see no alternative.
4) people will change the US regime in the next election.
I'm assuming based on your difficult to follow 'argument' that you subscribe to option 2.
In which case you need to direct your angst not at Europe, but at the US citizens who subscribe to options 1, 3 and 4. To me it seems that you simply want to call people names when your reasoning fails to deliver the results you want.
Anyway, I'm out of this discussion.
Europe has nothing to do with this discussion.
I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to accept that someone can be anti-bush without being anti-american.
This topic is about the Apathy of the American public. There are four broad interpretations of this
1) The American people are apathetic.
2) Bush is doing a good job, so people have no reason to be disgruntled.
3) Bush is doing a bad job but people see no alternative.
4) people will change the US regime in the next election.
I'm assuming based on your difficult to follow 'argument' that you subscribe to option 2.
In which case you need to direct your angst not at Europe, but at the US citizens who subscribe to options 1, 3 and 4. To me it seems that you simply want to call people names when your reasoning fails to deliver the results you want.
Anyway, I'm out of this discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going for option 5: "40% of the public is totally digruntled with the Bush administration, 40% is totally disgruntled with the Democratic opposition, and its the apathetic last 20% who don't care about any of it who will ultimately be responsible for deciding the fate of our country in the next election". Its a little scary when you put it that way. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I find it amusing that you base your entire criteria on the American level.
Maybe when the United States of Europe becomes a reality you can finally have something to be proud of.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make it sound as if such a union would be desirable.
Okay, this is the thing that really gets to me. Just because a few tiny nations like Luxembourg, Norway, and Ireland do better economically doesn't mean their economies are better than ours. Our productivity remains the best among the great and superpowers of the world. Our economic growth rates far surpass the Eurozone average. We have more technological patents per capita. We have 8/10 of the world's best universities. Even the staunchest anti-American elites in Western European countries dream of sending their kids to universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
And life for the average American is pretty damn good. Consumer goods are the cheapest in the US (thanks to massive economies of scale only capable in countries such as the USA or even China for that matter) relative to income.
Our current prosperity has everything to do with our massive population, abundance of natural resources, liberal trade policy, and a capitalist-leaning mixed economy that takes place in a stable political system. While I do agree that our petrodollar is letting us abuse our monetary hegemony (the USD is still by far the world's reserve currency), in the end we'll pay for that, or lessen our abuse towards more acceptable levels. And just what exactly is economic hegemony? We barter as equals before countries like the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and any other member of the trillion dollar club. The City of London is just as powerful a financial force as Wall Street is in New York.
Our military hegemony doesn't account for jack ish of our economic prosperity. Sure, arms exports account for a large part of our government revenue, but it's not our fault you guys can't build military aircraft worth a damn.
Look, the point is our system is functional and eventually does the right thing when it's absolutely necessary. Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other alternatives." It's time to get real and get with it. The USA government isn't perfect. No government is. At best it remains a good source of entertainment and controversy, but as long as the utilities are provided for, and my mail arrives no more than 10 minutes late, the government is functioning and above all, <b>stable</b>.
Political gridlock and special interests are actually very important parts of our system. The thing is EVERYBODY has a special interest. And as long as everybody's fighting out over stuff that actually doesn't matter, the system will work even though nobody's trying to make it work.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post has perfectly typified the response of exactly whom the topic describes - an apathetic american.
You seem content that your personal situation is stable and material demands satisfied. You seem to believe that as long as those immediate objectives are satisfied, the government should not be criticised.
To paraphrase your points:
<b>"Oh well, no one's perfect" </b> is frankly a terrible response to criticism. You and others like you should question how things can be improved rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo. Just because some things are going well, does not mean everything else is.
<b> "Our system eventually does the right thing when its absolutely necessary". </b> Again, what a terrible response. "We'll get it right in the end, don't worry about the temporary screw ups." You should not be waiting for the time when its "absolutely necessary" to do the "right thing". You should be questioning why isn't the right thing being done by your government and why isn't it being done <i>now.</i>
<b>"Our economic growth is the best and its way better than Europe"</b>. Firstly, sound economic growth does not cure your government's numerous failings and flaws in foreign policy, environmental issues, civil rights or anything else for that matter. Secondly, the irrelevant comparison to Europe smacks of an immature attitude of "oh we're better than you so shut up you've got no right to say anything".
Just because people criticise the US does not mean they think that their own country is the best, better or even any good at all. People like me criticise the US because they see a global superpower implementing bad policies. People criticise the US people, and more specifically people like you, because you seem to blindly accept them.
To reiterate the point, we're not saying our countries/policies/whatever are better. And more importantly, by admitting that we do not waive our moral right to criticise yours. In a time when the US is so globally dominant and interferes (for good or bad) so greatly in people's lives all over the world, it is all the more justified for the actions of the US to be scrutinised as much as possible, whatever the source of that criticism. You shouldn't dismiss the criticism in favour of blind patriotism, but understand it, learn from it and ask yourself why you are not doing the same.
Let's see what knee-jerk reaction I get.
If your economic system isn't healthier than ours and you're criticizing our economic policy, that's retarded. Criticize your own first. If your political system isn't any better than ours, then criticize your own before you criticize ours. If your government's policy isn't any better than ours, criticize yours first before you do ours.
Frankly, anti-American sentiment is an obsession. You damn us when we do and you damn us when we don't. It's not criticism. It's a blind dogma. We're villified for everything we do. And everything time we start slipping from the top of the charts, it's gleefully announced in some European news medium.
"The end of full employment in the United States" was a February 2001 headline from Le Monde when unemployment rose from 4.4% to 5.5%. This was at the same time the French government was lauding itself for bringing unemployment DOWN to 9%.
That's just one of many examples.
Frankly, having power does not mean we should be held to a higher standard. By that same reasoning, a tin pot dictator enslaving his own people is acceptable, since it's just a local, weak, failed state. This is roughly the same reasoning in Norway that a rich person who speeds should be fined more than a person only making 40k a year. The charge should fit the crime and intent, not the material position of the person commiting it.
Constructive criticism of the United States, its government, domestic and foreign policy is fine. And the most rational criticism of the United States usually comes from WITHIN our own country. We just get insults and jeers from people from other countries.
Criticism of the American people is pretty much retarded. There is no average American person. Pick any American walking on the street and you'll find people from all walks of life, from every ethnicity, social and economic background, and political view. There are millionaire businessmen with incredibly socialist views. Likewise, a working/middle class 40 hour work week joe making 30-40k per year will insist on a smaller and less intrusive government. They can be white, black, yellow, brown or a mix of all of the above and in any economic and any social position. Labeling the American people as apathetic, ignorant, unintelligent, sheep, fat, or any negative or even positive stereotype is plain retarded.
The entire point is that criticism needs to be specific, rational, and above all, <b>informed</b>.
There probably isn't a person here (except me, of course) who knows how a Presidential election is decided if no candidate secures the majority of electoral votes without consulting Wikipedia. Even fewer have even a functional understanding of how our judicial system works at the local, state, and Federal level. Even specific policy has so many facets that none of us are able to correctly comment or criticize on it. The more an "expert" on the Middle East knows, the less he is able to understand. Every policy expert has a very narrow understanding that nobody is completely right or completely wrong.
For the majority of people (Europeans or Americans, doesn't matter), what they know they get directly from their preferred source of media, be it television, internet news website, blog, Wikipedia, or even this very forum. The best advice I can give is to look for you and yours, because if everybody thinks selfishly, the system will work even though nobody is trying to make it work.
Quit caring about the US. Your own government is far more important for your own life. And your local government has more ability to screw your life over than your national government. The only thing that really matters is you and the people around you. Who here (who isn't in the US armed forces) is honestly directly affected by the US government unless they're paying Federal taxes?
There probably isn't a person here (except me, of course) who knows how a Presidential election is decided if no candidate secures the majority of electoral votes without consulting Wikipedia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ooh! I know! Its...its...
*thinks really hard*
Right, the Senate! The US Senate elects a winner if there is no one with 51% of the electoral college. Of course, that would require a 3rd party candidate to actually win electoral votes, which has happened all of what, once? Probably when Teddy Roosevelt ran for reelection, after deciding not to run in the primaries at all. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even fewer have even a functional understanding of how our judicial system works at the local, state, and Federal level.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you get "even fewer" than "no one except me"? Well, I suppose there's one obvious answer. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
[...]Frankly, having power does not mean we should be held to a higher standard. By that same reasoning, a tin pot dictator enslaving his own people is acceptable, since it's just a local, weak, failed state. This is roughly the same reasoning in Norway that a rich person who speeds should be fined more than a person only making 40k a year. The charge should fit the crime and intent, not the material position of the person commiting it.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A speeding ticket is not a charge though, it's a fine. Speeding is not a privilege that can be purchased at the cost of a ticket, it's an offense that is punished with a ticket. The whole concept of punishing crimes is based on the prevailing belief that laws need to be enforced. But if the punishment for speeding would be, say, having the police officer give you a disgruntled look, would instances of speeding go up? I'm going to venture a guess and say yes.
Punishment has to fit the crime and intent, but it has to be actual punishment. If a guy makes 20k a year and has to cough up, say, 200 bucks for a speeding ticket (1% of his income), he is going to feel that. If a guy makes 400k a year and has to cough up 200 bucks for a speeding ticket (0.05% of his income), it won't really affect him. If he speeds constantly and gets caught, on average, every 18.25 days, his punishment will at the end of the year be equal to that of the 20k earner who got a single ticket - both will have lost 1% of their income on speeding tickets. If he earns 7.3 million a year, he could get a speeding ticket every single day for the cost of 1% of his income.
The economist Steven David Levitt will tell you that incentives are a powerful motivational force. One example he cites is a kindergarten in Israel that had a problem with parents picking their kids up late, forcing one of the employees to stay after hours with the children. They instituted a small fine for late pickups, but to their surprise found the amount of late pickups to <i>increase</i>. The reason, in hindsight, is simple: The fine had been set too low, and the message it sent was that parents could simply compensate monetarily for late pickups. And since the fine was low (and thus affordable), it wasn't a sufficient incentive against late pickups.
In summary, that's the reasoning for fining people according to their income: Making sure that the fine remains a punishment, and doesn't come to be viewed as a fee by those who can afford it.
And, Cwxf, it's the House. Not the Senate. Close one, though!
And, Cwxf, it's the House. Not the Senate. Close one, though!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*looks it up*
Oh right, the House elects the President, and the Senate elects the Vice President. Not necessarily from the same ticket. Forgot that. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
The problem is, the government simply can't be knowledgeable about everything. Take lawmakers for example. They have to pass or reject laws about topics as diverse as scientific research, technology, international politics and business. No one person can be an expert on all those things. Sure they call in experts to testify, but do they really understand what's being said? I think not. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a viable solution to fix this. You work with what you got I suppose.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you can. Just find some people smarter than our current crop of idiots.
You'd be hard pressed to find any Congressman, Senator, President, or Cabinet level advisor without at least a degree from a prestigious university and an incredibly shrewd analysis of political science.
They are in the business of pleasing voters, and each and every one of them can obviously swing more than 50% of the voters. They're doing their job and judging current election trends, they're doing it very well for the most part. Even Bush is intelligent. Just because he's a poor public speaker doesn't mean he's a retard.
Probably the only exception to this rule that I can think of is Dan Quayle, but he was a Vice President, and they're practically useless.
To think that anybody working as a high elected official in Washington DC is an idiot is simply buying into all that retarded cant.
You'd be hard pressed to find any Congressman, Senator, President, or Cabinet level advisor without at least a degree from a prestigious university and an incredibly shrewd analysis of political science.
They are in the business of pleasing voters, and each and every one of them can obviously swing more than 50% of the voters. They're doing their job and judging current election trends, they're doing it very well for the most part. Even Bush is intelligent. Just because he's a poor public speaker doesn't mean he's a retard.
Probably the only exception to this rule that I can think of is Dan Quayle, but he was a Vice President, and they're practically useless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[youtube]5ir_mKso_qc[/youtube]
As the chairman of the Senate's Commerce committee, I'd expect him to know more about what the hell bill he was talking about.
Once again, examples of idiocy. There are dozens more. I hear them within 10 minutes of turning C-Span on, and no shortage of them end up on CNN or the Daily Show, to be equally poked at.
You can't honestly think that a clear majority of them are smart guys. And hell, even if they are- if the American people watched what their representative voted for more often, I could certainly think things would change more around America.
And seriously Rapier7: Do you have to resort to name calling and insults? If your argument doesn't stand its own ground without them, it doesn't stand anyone's ground.
( I say this on the day we are counting our general election votes, where yetereday's exit polls suggest a return of the incumbent coalition. Depressing really, as they have a deplorable track record on things that usually matter. *sadface* )
In my opinion, what we're witnessing is a reassesment of the elite class in Washington. Over the last couple of years the internet has been used increasingly to parse and disect comments from politicos and the pundits are pushing (usually with gobs of money) for an environment based on angst rather than support.
There seems to be more of an enlightenment in the population recently. We've gone from the magnifying glass used by underhanded journalists to the microscope used by basement bloggers. People are having a harder time convincing themselves that politicians and their staff can be taken seriously when they address the public. Sympathetic writers on both sides can no longer cover up the shenanigans of their favorites.
This does not mean that I have hope for the general public to come to their senses and only elect non-jack### politicians, but it does explain the increased feeling of discontent.
Of course, we could also just blame it on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome" target="_blank">Bush Derangement Syndrome</a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
An efficient government is a scary one. Just think of how many more tanks would be rolling about if it didn't cost us two in waste for every five we produced, as a completely non-based, out of my butt example. I like my governments full of sloth and resistant to change. We have enough economic troubles in the markets without our entire government polarizing and re-polarizing on issues day in and day out.
Look, a politician's job is to get elected. Serving people is simply a means to that end. And in places like Congress, making alliances and being on friendly terms with your colleagues is more important than your expertise when getting appointed to a committee. Considering that in the House, committees are appointed by <b>The Speaker of the House</b> and in the Senate, they are appointed by the <b>Senate Majority Leader</b>, you can easily deduce that who you know is more important than what you know. Congress operates on a very Hollywoodish scale.
Look, all those politicians had degrees in political science, law, history, or something related to American politics. They won't know much about the internet, science, economics, or anything that's actually relevant that they're passing. Bills average over 300 pages long in stipulations, caveats, and addendums. Congressman delegate their tasks to their aides and to their leaders, if you get an honest answer (from a politician? yeah right), they'll admit that half the time, they don't even know what they're voting for.
That doesn't signify stupidity or even a willful ignorance. It simply means that politicians (god forbid) don't know everything and that they aren't stupid enough to try. Most Congressmen will eventually develop a single issue that they care about pushing and they focus on that.
Calling a politician stupid is, in itself, stupid. They all know the job and they all know what to do to keep that job.
Rob, checks and balance should be designed into the system, not assumed as a defficiency. If you don't want quick legislation then you change your mechanisms to prevent it. You don't depend on your legislators being too stupid to do the right thing in a timely manner.
A politician's job is not just to get elected. This is exactly the apathy that Quaunaut is querying. It may be his personal priority to "mind his seat" but his job is to serve the public via the legislative process.
There is nothing stupid about calling *anyone* stupid, especially if in fact, they are stupid.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I like my governments full of sloth and resistant to change.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, your reasoning is highly fallacious. You are making the assumption that efficient and educated politicians can only be radical and not resistant to change. You are substituting incompetence for conservatism and vice versa.
Defence has turned to excuse as people try to claim incompetence is a virtue.
Rob, checks and balance should be designed into the system, not assumed as a defficiency. If you don't want quick legislation then you change your mechanisms to prevent it. You don't depend on your legislators being too stupid to do the right thing in a timely manner.
A politician's job is not just to get elected. This is exactly the apathy that Quaunaut is querying. It may be his personal priority to "mind his seat" but his job is to serve the public via the legislative process.
There is nothing stupid about calling *anyone* stupid, especially if in fact, they are stupid.
Again, your reasoning is highly fallacious. You are making the assumption that efficient and educated politicians can only be radical and not resistant to change. You are substituting incompetence for conservatism and vice versa.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not really what I'm saying at all. Checks and balances are all well and good, but they don't mean anything if parties are not given a chance to consider their options and decide what to do. The very nature of our society prevents the majority from always agreeing on everything. In a room full of hundreds who are grouped into camps of similar thought, reaching a compromise is not a simple or elegant task. It's a lengthy and tiring slugfest.
And it has to be in order to ensure that everyone can feel like they took a part in it. I won't say that the Bush administration is highly efficient; I will say they have been more efficient than some others, and we can see what happened. Regardless of whether or not we see eye to eye on the validity of the actions they have taken, can we agree that the <i>speed</i> with which they have taken them is formidable?
Also, what makes you think that people have to be incompetent for their actions to be slow? I don't want incompetent leaders, I want leaders with diverse ambitions in general. This by its nature makes the process slow. Our checks and balances make the process slow. Hundreds and thousands of hours are spent preparing a bill by people with the utmost intelligence. It then promptly gets vetoed by the president because of a small change that's trying to piggy-back on an otherwise fine bill. That's not incompetence, that's us trying to make sure that nobody pulls a fast one.
When an administration comes to power with a congressional and legislative backing, things get done, and they get done fast. While small periods of this are necessary, they also produce some unrest and strain our public. (read: now)
So, like I said, an efficient government is scary. It will not produce documentation of its efforts; it will not consult others; it will not inform the public. Not because it's necessarily evil to begin with, but because all those things cost money that could be put to better use. I don't argue that wastefulness is a good thing in general, but in this case, it can be.
Anyway, I'm glad we're past the point where the Bush administration is being blindly defended and now his zealots are now simply pretending that his bad points are in fact, his good points. ( not directed at you though, Rob ).
Again you are confusing effiency and competency. If a lengthy and detailed debate is to be considered as part of the core remit of an elected representative, then doing that part of the process is efficient. Efficiency != expediency. Efficiency is doing the job effectively and without waste.
Anyway, I'm glad we're past the point where the Bush administration is being blindly defended and now his zealots are now simply pretending that his bad points are in fact, his good points. ( not directed at you though, Rob ).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think I am. I mean, you can't call the amount of waste produced by my government not really waste because they're part of the process. They <b>are</b> part of the process, but they're still waste. Those resources could have been used somewhere else.
You may be right about the expediency point, but if feel that expediting a process is just a change it priority, not a change in the way the process is handled.
I guess it all depends on the way you "measure" efficiency. What I'm saying is that for a government to make the "right" decision quickly is a pie in the sky goal. Something you may strive for but should never reach because it's unstable.
This is the apathy this topic is supposed to be about. Seriously, if all of you who are excusing the record of Bush's regime have nothing more to say than "we can't do better than this" then you are not adding to the discussion, you are in fact, providing clear evidence of the prevalence of such an attitude.
The true patriot never stops questioning his government, and never accepts pathetic excuses for a bad job.
This constant inferring of thought from other posters is quickly reaching the point of being offensive. Everyone here is using their own words to express their thoughts. They certainly don't need you to do it for them.
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. They are not, however, entitled to assign an opinion to others.