Stussy88

This is confused thinking in extremis. Reality exists. If someone's perception is misguided, you have no obligation at all to respect it or otherwise self-censor. I really do think this is a case of people choosing to be offended when clearly none was intended and no link could, in reality be made, given that the President didn't write the bill. For my part ~ tough luck. Even if someone produced a cartoon saying something like "Obama is an ignorant monkey" and pasting his face on a gorilla's body, they still get to say that. You may not like it, you may not agree, but once you start deciding what free speech is acceptable and what is not, you are on a dangerous road. You might also find that anyone publishing said cartoons would see a circulation drop-off to the point of bankruptcy. So imposed censorship is unnecessary.

My point is somewhat peripheral to the post, but your comment on sports teams got me thinking. I watch my home town football team (i.e. soccer). The whole concept of collective adulation troubles me slightly, but I get a number of things out of it. 1. My brother and I are very different and not that close, but we both like this, so this is imprtant to me 2. I like the (somewhat dark) humour of British sports crowds 3. I enjoy the edginess (UK soccer hooliganism hasn't entirely gone away and is making quite a comeback) as a contrast to an otherwise sanitised life 4. I don't live in Wales anymore (and couldn't, it's too parochial) but it is a slightly grounding experience Whilst I want them to win, in truth, I'm not THAT bothered. And it means I'm not some ghastly cloned Manchester United fan!

Manchester United ~ eeurgh.... It's not about the football, it's kind of a lifestyle brand choice thing. I was at the British museum last summer and I saw four Chinese kids, all talking away in Mandarin, (so location and language. I'm thinking tourists) all with Manchester United shirts on. Football traditionally had a connection with where you lived, (hence me and the inescapable devotion to second tier club, Cardiff city), but really since 1992/3 when TV and marketing kicked in, it became all about branding and celebrity. Mnchester United perhaps represent the pinnacle/bottom of the barrel of this, thus ~ eeurgh....

Yes, I think it shows that if you are sound philosophicallly and morally, your principles can be applied to altered circumstances. By contrast so many of today's politicians are driven by soundbite and focus group and so when a crisis hits, they have no core philosophy to fall back on. So, they are driven by the prevailing zeitgeist into insanity like bailouts as there is nothing against which to objectively judge the proposed course of action. A small confession, when all this nonsense started, For a week or so, I too thought we needed to bail out banks, but some discussions on this board really made me think ~ Compare the proposal to first principles not hysteria, and soon common sense was restored. (In the head of Stussy88 if not in Whitehall or Washington!)

It is the default assumption that China takes the lead but this ignores the internal stresses of a country like China. The various regional movements make Iraq look homogenous. China could break up and possibly bloodily. The Russians were, are and are likely to remain a gangster/feifdom. Despite natural resources their impact will be marginal except in their immediate sphere. India might do something, but again, the various regional and religous tensions are a massive internal threat. FORGET the EU. This is a bureacracy gone mad, Europe will sink under the burden. Some of the more robust countries like say Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore are too small to have a major impact. All the countries you mention (South Korea, Israel, Japan, Taiwan) are under real threat if the US reduces and were I South Korea, Japan and Taiwan along with say Singapore, I would start a serious and major military expansion along with a cast-iron defensive alliance. I might also develop some nukes. Overall I think your analysis is right, there really is no-one to obviously step-up and fragmantation will abound everywhere along with localised populist military adventures.

That's a very nice analysis which, with your premission, I will use.

We don't need any external help. All we need do, is let failing companies go bust, cut lunatic spending and deficits and get our government out of the way. Why you would let Brown lecture you when 30 years ago he was a politics lecturer at Glasgow Polytechnic, (a second-rate university) was initially baffling. Especially since unlike the President and every member of congress, he was NOT elected as PM, he just assumed the role. However he and Obama both seem to believe that really big government is the solution to everything, and I presume if someone else says it, Barak might think it will seem more credible. He doesn't know Mr Brown very well obviously. (Incidentally, compare President Harding’s “hands off” approach to the lunacy of the New Deal. In 1921 in the US output fell by 9% and unemployment rose to 11.7% But, left alone from meddling, the economy bounced back in 1922 with unemployment at 6.7% and only 2.4% in 1923. Unemployment remained high all through the 1930's under FDR.)

I did not doubt that, nor mean to imply to the contrary. I simply did not understand it and requested clarification. Whether you choose to offer the same is of course, up to you.

I again agree with you. I wasn't suggesting pointing out the flaws in existing beliefs, then going merrily on your way leaving a vacuum. In such circumstances, you are quite right, they would revert to the old beliefs. I was merely suggesting that they process of persuasion, is two distinct and seperate stages. Trying to combine them into one produces resistance. Seperating them is effective as you allow people to think they have worked things out for themselves ~ even if you've 'spoon-fed' them.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't quite understand.

Quite correct. Having looked at the psychology of persuasion, I have concluded you cannot simply convince most people of the correctness of a case by better argument, even one fully supported by the facts. This sounds counter-intuitive but think about it. Rather than admit they were wrong they will often defend irrational positions out of ego/bravado or the unwillingness to admit defeat in argument. Instead, rather than proposing a better alternative, you must allow someone to conclude that a certain position is inadequate or otherwise flawed in a non-confrontational way, (in my recent, but extensive experience of this, I have observed that they are far more likely to dispense with flawed beliefs this way). When they have dispensed with the previous belief system, they will be amenable to logic and principle. Ergo, the questions were designed to allow someone to conclude that the current proposals are flawed, nothing more. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition as you observe. Not the end of the journey, but a necessary first-step.

General comment on the overall thread rather than a reply to this post. First, the question misses the point and is a distraction. Arcane debates about what word you may use to describe a political system simply won't engage people. For politics to be relevant and understood in most peoples lives you need to ask simple questions which get to the heart of the matter, and ones that can easily be remembered, viz: 1. Is it sensible to pass a multi-trillion dollar spending bill that no-one has read? 2. Should we look at each one of the 9,000 earmarks to see if every single one is vital, or should we just trust the senators? 3. When you are deep, deep in debt, is the way out to borrow money? 4. If a company goes bust, it closes, isn't this the American way? What examples of successful state-subsidised companies are there? 5. How can we increase spending, increase borrowing, cut taxes for 95% of American families and cut the deficit by 2013? Aren't these mutualy exclusive objectives that you could work out with third grade maths? 6. Ever feel you are being conned on a gigantic scale and are now allowing not only yourselves but your children to be sold into de facto debt-induced bonded slavery?

Seriously ?

If your question relates to the air-superiority fighter vs fighter role, based not only on acrobatics as shown in the videos, but on speed, available weapons, survivability, the ability to bring weapons to bear, the ability to avoid detection, along with pilot training and tactics, then the answer is both suggested historically by looking at East vs West air combat and by most commentators in the field. It's the Raptor.

"we are in many respects" Perhaps the past tense is more appropraite. None of you will like me saying this, but just as the 19th century was England's and it took us a long time to realise that we had been over taken in the world, the 20th century was America's. The 21st century wil not be. The shattering budget deficit and current accound deficit, combined with credible rivals will destroy American leadership just as debt destroyed ours. It will be hard to accept, as it was (and is) for us, you will deny it for years, perhaps decades, but the century of Americana is over. It doesn't have to be so. A return to first principles would energise you as never before, but that is not a remote prospect. Tell me honestly, you don't see decay and decadence everywhere? I hate saying this.

Sadly I have to agree, a great many years of post war socialism and/or paternal/patrician toryism has made a great many of us into docile chattels who do what we are told. Combine that with straight propaganda in education and a state-funded TV network massively sympathetic to the leftist agenda, a broadly unaccountable executive and many people don't care, don't think and do as they are told. Apart from a brief period in the 1980's I don't think individualism has ever really been encouraged.

I will spare you my opinion of the loathesome Porritt. Some other gems... "Why put a price on the priceless importance of carbon-free homes?" Er, to see how much it would cost and assess the viability? "the ignorant, belligerent denial about climate change, nor the astonishing assumption that everybody has a god-given right to fly anywhere in the world at the lowest possible price regardless of the impact on anyone else" Presumably we need to ask his permission? Well I could go on, but blood pressure and all...

Well said indeed. Even if it were possible, they don't want a solution, they want a crisis because that frightens people into agreeing to the wider political agenda which is of course, the point. Ayn Rand discussed this in "Return of the primitive" 50 years ahead of her time much?

There are a great many things in Northern Ireland that infringe on the freedom of people, this is small beer, but to the substantive, he has done the right thing for the wrong reasons. In order to be morally consistent, Wilson should support a ban on all government propaganda from 'turn your lights off' to 'quit smoking' and including everything in between. In the modern UK this is a substantial body of hectoring. From the top of my head ~ don't smoke ~ don't drink too much (no more than 21 units for a man) ~ eat at least five pieces of fruit and vegetables a day ~ don't drive a car ~ buy a car (but presumably don't drive it? ~ seriously, a recent one in light of the downturn) ~ exercise more ~ use public transport ~ don't discriminate ~ don't eat too much salt ~ love public services (like crappy schools and public hospitals) ~ PAY YOUR TAXES ON TIME! ~ don't take goods through customs for anyone else ~ look at the energy rating of white goods ~ insulate your home ~ don't carry a knife ~ report a benefits cheat ~ report an illegal immigrant ~ don't put your garbage out a day early (sic) However, he has a narrow band of responsibility so I will give him two cheers. That said, NI politics is beset with crazy monotheism and he is no exception so perhaps only one cheer.

Yes, I agree with you. Even though it would have killed the story, a well written contract that meant no violations from Roark's design was the way to go, not dynamite. Roark clearly failed in this aspect, but I put it down to literary licence

The BBC put out this on the Iranian nuke issue. Some interesting stuff. I did not know for example that Iran and the USA co-operated over the destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan early on. You also get the inside track on the various players It's worth watching Iran nukes BBC video This link will last for 30 days only because that's all they give you on i-player (I think it's something to do with the licence fee justification but I'm not sure).

I'm so sorry about that, I had not realised. These are the knots the state funded broadcaster ties itself in, solely to justify the licence fee. Otherwise the argument maybe "Why do non-Brits get these shows for free?" It really is nonsensical, surely the point of producing programs is to have them seen! Obviously, I would not expect you to judge any series you had not seen.

I don't know if this is just British reserve in general, or me in particular, but the last thing I would do, were I Bob, is start moaning to Joe about it. More likely, I would assess the situation and decide on a plan and only then possibly share, but there would certainly be no emotional outburst. One may expect such behaviour from some ladies, given their sometime inclination towards emotion, but honestly, not from men.

I would have to add Rhett Butler in "Gone with the wind" I cite his realistic assessment of the South's chances when everyone else was in full Jingo mode, his refusal to kill Charles when challenged to do so, his blockade running, his regard for Belle when polite company would not accept her, his regard for nanny. That and I kinda like his sense of stoic humour. Also I can relate to his regard for an incredibly attractive, dark, slightly loopy, hard working, self-regarding woman with FAR too many dresses.

Help me out here, what is that?