Alright, to clear things up... I don't give a damn if the suicide rates are high in Europe... It's a shame for all those people but ya'll keep forgetting; Europe is no country! Don't generalize Europeans, such a people does not exist! People who live in Europe don't even claim being European, you're either German, English, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish whatever but not European! This is not something like America, which does claim to be one country under one flag...
And is as large and diverse as the whole of Western Europe. It's no better to generalize Americans than it is Europeans, however we may self-identify.
So why don't you compare the Netherlands (pop. 13 million) to Pennsylvania (pop. 12.5 million) rather than the whole United States (pop. 300 million)?
And suicide rates in my country aren't as high as in America. Then again, crime rate, murders, robbings, (school) shootings are as well.
And i believe in most (all?) European countries those problems aren't as great as in America. Weapons are illegal, and you'll go to prison if you do have weapons. It's pretty effective, banning the greatest tool of destruction for preveting your people to go on a killing spree.
The case of Switzerland suggests that there's more to the discrepancy in crime rates than gun law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Since when has any species been anything other than reactionary? That's Nature's way, except Nature didn't count on a species being able to alter itself and its surroundings quite as profoundly as we humans are able to.
Humans nature on the other hand has shown an ability to "think ahead" and in the past have built infrastructure out of "planning for the future." Focusing on ultruistic goals such as "war on poverty" is a joke. Ironically even in a number of major religions say flat out that humans cannot end suffering or some variation there of.
Build a safe school? Children can actually learn without water dripping on them during their studies. Set up a microloan system for small areas to create small buisinesses? Wow gee, small buisinesses actually spawn. Some fail, but others succeed and employ people.
It's nice to have silly ideas like the "Great Society" or "Go to the Moon," ya at some level they do pan out and do some good. However, the longer lasting and less risky ideas also need to be done. You know, pave a road? Build a bridge? Reservoirs and so forth and so on.
That and the other magical fairy tales we tell children, like "every can go to college and succeed at their dreams." Meanwhile junior rather than majoring in some useless degree could make more being a machinist or a plumber. That and actually enjoy being a plumber or a machinist than being paranoid about losing his job at Wal-Mart.
Ah ode to the joys of dreamers and ideologues; their failed aspirations lead to the ruination that is brought in their wake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Humans nature on the other hand has shown an ability to "think ahead" and in the past have built infrastructure out of "planning for the future." Focusing on ultruistic goals such as "war on poverty" is a joke. Ironically even in a number of major religions say flat out that humans cannot end suffering or some variation there of.
Build a safe school? Children can actually learn without water dripping on them during their studies. Set up a microloan system for small areas to create small buisinesses? Wow gee, small buisinesses actually spawn. Some fail, but others succeed and employ people.
It's nice to have silly ideas like the "Great Society" or "Go to the Moon," ya at some level they do pan out and do some good. However, the longer lasting and less risky ideas also need to be done. You know, pave a road? Build a bridge? Reservoirs and so forth and so on.
That and the other magical fairy tales we tell children, like "every can go to college and succeed at their dreams." Meanwhile junior rather than majoring in some useless degree could make more being a machinist or a plumber. That and actually enjoy being a plumber or a machinist than being paranoid about losing his job at Wal-Mart.
Ah ode to the joys of dreamers and ideologues; their failed aspirations lead to the ruination that is brought in their wake.
Was there a point to this post? What exactly is your point?
Yes, humans show an ability unique among the animal kingdom to consider the "long run." But as animals, this is not prudent for survival. We are instinctively geared to the here and now because way back when that's what was necessary: Why care about signs that a drought will happen in ten years when the big tiger is about to chase you down right now?
Note also that pre-planned infrastructure is a rare occurrence. Cities, for example, were usually grown piecemeal as people moved in and built houses. Planned cities were usually surveyed in the modern era or rebuilt after some catastrophic event (see: Paris in the Napoleonic era for the latter, or Phoenix, Arizona for the former). Usually it happens according to supply and demand. Forcing some plan also carries a certain sort of risk; that is, it assumes everything will go according to plan. See Stalin's five-year plans.
Oh, and machinists and plumbers need some sort of technical training, whereas Wal-Mart doesn't even require perfect English skills.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Look, I'm an atheist. I've got little love for Islam or Christianity, radical or otherwise, though I try to respect moderate members of both faiths. So don't think I'm unilaterally defending Christians or denouncing Muslims. But can you look at all the acts of violence committed by extremists of either faith over the last ten years and say in all honesty that more were carried out by Christians than by Muslims?
I mean, geez...
Why are you putting an arbitrary time limit on the atrocities commited by either religion? Fanaticism in any religion is dangerous, and the main reason we don't see such widespread violence from Christian extremists is because they are the dominant religion and already had their atrocities.
I was refering to the belief itself, not the people who bring it forward... The koran itself is a more peaceful guideline than the bible, though both are fine if you interpret it in the right way.
Unfortunately, European countries are not populated by the belief itself, but rather by the people who bring it forward - and many of them interpret it in the wrong way. It's not a problem of inherent religious differences, any more than Sicilian organized crime in America was a problem of inherent racial differences. But it is a problem.
I'm well aware that within america there may be great differences between different states, but then agian, you do claim to be one country.. Europe does not.
So what? Do these claims alter the statistical facts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yea, sure it's a problem... But I only said that I was referring to the belief itself, not the people.. I was not trying to make any other point than that the islamic belief is no more voilent than the christian one, in it's roots.
And what relevance does that point have to the claim that there is a problem with Muslim assimilation in Western Europe?
And that Europe is no country, but America is (you say it yourself) do not alter facts, but it does say that what counts for one European country does not have to count for another (like suicide rates for example), but a fact for America counts for America as a whole (suicide rates again for example).
Usually, when people try to finagle statistics to their advantage by playing around with language, they don't come right out and admit it. I applaud your bravery.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Was there a point to this post? What exactly is your point?
Yes, humans show an ability unique among the animal kingdom to consider the "long run." But as animals, this is not prudent for survival. We are instinctively geared to the here and now because way back when that's what was necessary: Why care about signs that a drought will happen in ten years when the big tiger is about to chase you down right now?
Note also that pre-planned infrastructure is a rare occurrence. Cities, for example, were usually grown piecemeal as people moved in and built houses. Planned cities were usually surveyed in the modern era or rebuilt after some catastrophic event (see: Paris in the Napoleonic era for the latter, or Phoenix, Arizona for the former). Usually it happens according to supply and demand. Forcing some plan also carries a certain sort of risk; that is, it assumes everything will go according to plan. See Stalin's five-year plans.
Oh, and machinists and plumbers need some sort of technical training, whereas Wal-Mart doesn't even require perfect English skills.
<insert jank ba here>+4 years of study=Wal Mart
Technical training for <insert good blue collar job here>+2 years=comfortible life
The isue with planning ahead is that it works often times without being an idealistic fool like Mao or Stalin. You monitor and adjust your strategy.
Sure cities grow in wierd ways, however Eisenhower did have forsight when the highways were constructed, no?
Roman aqueduct system in part is still in use.
You cannot preplan every minutia, but you can preplan major directions with proper micromanagement and a realistic macro goal.
To be honest, people have "bucked the trend" more than once and it's often considered some of the major "achievements" for a people ironically.
We're beyond the excuse of being stupid animals. The fault is now that of the specie, not evolution.
Besides, I'm on the nurture AND nature side of the argument anyway. It's when you combine the effects of human nature with the aspect of nurturing some prudence you increase the likelihood of an improved society. If anything, some aspects of the WWII generation showed this as well as the "founding fathers" era. Those eras aren't perfect by a very long shot, but we do benefit a lot from their preplanning.
[quote=Biosphere]I think you're to much out on making points and crically analyzing what someone says... I'm not trying to break down your point of view; just sharing mine. No more than that. I cannot fully express myself in this language logically because it is not my own, maybe that's why whatever I try to say does not come out very... Convincing.
But for the sake of making points and stuff; I have not made any claim for some problem with Muslim assimilation I can remember, what I said it what I said alone and there is no deeper meaning or another point I want to make with what I said; I honestly believe that the Islam belief itself, how it's written down in the Koran, is no more violent, even less violent, than the Christian belief. That's all I'm saying about Muslims and stuff.
The whole thing about Europe and stuff is just that as Dutchmen, America is a country hard to understand. There are a lot of things about your country that I find very strange.. And then people started saying stuff about Europe and I then said that I'm not European, because such a country does not exist... So that some things that might be true for Europe, do not have to be true for an individual country...
[quote=Biosphere]
Europe is typically associated with a specific "continent/area" and then broken down by country statistically for studies, the same with the United States to states or Canada to providences. It's the nature of how people analyze cultures. You start with the macro and then move onward to the micro level. The issue isn't the "claim to be a single country," it's the nature and way that studies are tallied and analyzed globally.
You're argument about the concept of "European doesn't exist" holds true for "America" as well to some degree, there are extremely different subsects of pocket cultures found all through out the continent. You can also famously find the differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada as well. Again, you're denying the way that social scientists break down cultural trends. You are a European as well as Denmarksman to a social scientist as many here are American as to a New Yorker is the same person.
The questions you ask are complex, it's similar to "Why is Japan more conservative than Europe?"
These are the intentions of the original founders for the Constitution, it doesn't answer all your questions but it does give insight to some of your questions.
Find a book on Puritanism, but they were the first to want to escape the ravages of Europe during the British Civil War and wanted to perfect society as humanly possible and then bring it back to the continent.
Furthermore, if you want to be taken more seriously I'd advise to take out assumed "truism" like the potent theory of "media control." It's consumerism and culture of debt more so than the "media," and that is an issue every where.
If anything, if you're really interested in attaining the "real answers" the best thing is to read up on American history and analyze the trends yourself. However, like anything European mind sets are as easily influenced by their media and popular culture as Americans are.
Technical training for <insert good blue collar job here>+2 years=comfortible life
True. However, you're missing the third piece of that hierarchy.
<insert relevant B.A. here> + 4 years of study + (<insert relevant graduate study here> + X years of study, for a given X) = very comfortable life.
We need people at all ends. Although I'd like to think that Wal-Mart and other menial jobs would go to people without any education, such that they could afford to receive technical training or even higher education.
The isue with planning ahead is that it works often times without being an idealistic fool like Mao or Stalin. You monitor and adjust your strategy.
Haha, I wouldn't call either of those men "idealistic" or "foolish." They certainly got exactly what they wanted, even if those under them died horribly.
Sure cities grow in wierd ways, however Eisenhower did have forsight when the highways were constructed, no?
You do know why the highway system was constructed, right? It's the same reason as why Hitler built the Autobahn: To facilitate the effective movement of military troops and war materiel. It wasn't foresight in the way I think you mean it, because he was planning a defense in case of war. Now the interstate highway system is notably effective in facilitating trade and the movement of products.
That's better. However, the aqueducts weren't all conceived of at once; it was still a piecemeal operation carried out to facilitate the growth of individual cities as needed.
Furthermore, if you want to be taken more seriously I'd advise to take out assumed "truism" like the potent theory of "media control." It's consumerism and culture of debt more so than the "media," and that is an issue every where.
We're beyond the excuse of being stupid animals. The fault is now that of the specie, not evolution.
But we're not inherently beyond our hardwired instincts. Culturally, yes, we can and should move on from the basic nature which enabled us to survive in small family groups on the open savanna but which is now unsuitable for the modern world.
How do you think consumerism can be propagated, anyhow? By playing to the basic human survival instinct and corrupting it. That's like how certain animals in captivity won't stop eating when presented with food, because their instinct tells them to stock up for a time of hardship that never comes.
How do you think consumerism can be propagated, anyhow? By playing to the basic human survival instinct and corrupting it. That's like how certain animals in captivity won't stop eating when presented with food, because their instinct tells them to stock up for a time of hardship that never comes.
This may be true, but Europe has far less media than America has.
And studies have shown that parents are also very likely to influence the child's spending habits as an adult through their own example of spending (not what they say). If the parents are spindlethrifts, then the child is statistically very likely to be a spindlethrift as well. Sure the child will consume (nature), however the child won't become engorged by consumer debt (nurture).
Again, people aren't the typical "animal" that people seem to think they are. There's only a few animals that can really be compared with humanity for it's uniqueness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I don´t really think we have (acces to) less media, but our lives seem to be less influenced by it. But that's what I see in media so I'm not sure.
I don't mean access exactly, I just mean that there are fewer European media corporations. I mean, most of the time it's one or two companies (see: the BBC) that own a lot of television channels, or it's state media, or whatever. Print media doesn't have the same lack of competition (at least, from what I know), but then again we're talking about relatively small countries compared to a populous and consumer-oriented United States. If we want a channel dedicated entirely to golf, that's what we'll get, dammit!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Lol, OK you've got a point there.
In Holland we have like... 12 channels? Haha from what I've heard in America there is a much greater choice of TV.
But then again I (and most other people here in my age) have no problem understanding other languages like German and English, so I can watch channels with those languages as well^^
This is true, although I would imagine this also gives you a certain bit of redundancy. Obviously the rate of multilingualism is higher in Europe than in America (where we think people from other parts of our own country talk funny), but that still doesn't eliminate the fact that you get what amounts to French, German, Dutch, Italian, and English versions of the local news.
EDIT: Wait, this is the "Obama wins!" thread...? Heh.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
EDIT: Wait, this is the "Obama wins!" thread...? Heh.
Apparently so. I think he's off to a good start. He is living out some of the ideals that won him the job, such as brining in all parties involved (ex: meeting with all the generals invovled in Iraq).
He might have won but he still has a fight on his hands.
he does not have the super majority in the senate. there is still filibusters that can occur.
as it looks now coleman is going to win his seat. after the recount he is up by 635 votes.
there is still a decision on what to do with the ballot challanges, however by the looks of it he is going to win.
which mean a 58-42 vote in the senate. obama is going to have to work hard to get some of his agenda through. he is going to have to do what he said and work with the other side and he is going to have to make concessions.
otherwise he is going to have a difficult time getting anything done.
i think the senate republicans are a united group or at least i hope they are on certain issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
he does not have the super majority in the senate. there is still filibusters that can occur.
There could be filibusters in the Senate even if the Democrats did win 60 seats. Bear in mind that there are conservative and moderate Democrats who side with the Republicans on a lot of issues (and vice versa). The "magic number" that makes filibusters impossible is a myth.
which mean a 58-42 vote in the senate. obama is going to have to work hard to get some of his agenda through. he is going to have to do what he said and work with the other side and he is going to have to make concessions.
otherwise he is going to have a difficult time getting anything done.
i think the senate republicans are a united group or at least i hope they are on certain issues.
Yep, and it's a good thing too. We've seen what happens when things get "too easy" for a President (even when the Congress is stacked against him!)... all the options aren't put on the table. I really hope the Republicans can revert back to their "small government, fiscal responsibility" platform instead of the "family values" schlock. That's not politics. We need a little more diametric opposition and not just on the beliefs end of things... differing policy would help too. Currently both parties have the "let's spend" solution to everything; it's just a matter of where the money should go. One party (I'm thinking the GOP here) should take the "how about let's not" solution and then real compromises can be made.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
You mean shift the tax burdern from the Federal government to the states and local municipalities? Bush did that, it worked extremely well.
Small government doesn't work, neither does big government. It's necessary government that works. However, "necessary government" is always hijacked by ideologues and greed more oft than naught.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This is just so cool. Obama's cabinet is filling up to the brim with (arguably) the best qualified persons for their respective jobs. As opposed to Bush's cabinet, which was full of persons who just said, "Yes, sir!" a lot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I stopped listening to who he is bringing into his cabinet after he appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
A friend of mine said that it was a decision that was bad for him but good for the party. I reluctantly agree, but I still don't think she needs any more face time on the world stage.
I think Obama has the strongest cabinet I have seen in a couple decades, and much to many people's dismay, I like Hillary Clinton for Secretary of state. It's much more suited to her than president ever was. I think she'll do a good job.
I know many people expected Obama to fill his cabinet with idealistic extremists (some even wanted it), but he's honestly surprised me with his ability to select a cabinet. I think he'll be a better president than I envisioned for sure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And is as large and diverse as the whole of Western Europe. It's no better to generalize Americans than it is Europeans, however we may self-identify.
So why don't you compare the Netherlands (pop. 13 million) to Pennsylvania (pop. 12.5 million) rather than the whole United States (pop. 300 million)?
The case of Switzerland suggests that there's more to the discrepancy in crime rates than gun law.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Humans nature on the other hand has shown an ability to "think ahead" and in the past have built infrastructure out of "planning for the future." Focusing on ultruistic goals such as "war on poverty" is a joke. Ironically even in a number of major religions say flat out that humans cannot end suffering or some variation there of.
Build a safe school? Children can actually learn without water dripping on them during their studies. Set up a microloan system for small areas to create small buisinesses? Wow gee, small buisinesses actually spawn. Some fail, but others succeed and employ people.
It's nice to have silly ideas like the "Great Society" or "Go to the Moon," ya at some level they do pan out and do some good. However, the longer lasting and less risky ideas also need to be done. You know, pave a road? Build a bridge? Reservoirs and so forth and so on.
That and the other magical fairy tales we tell children, like "every can go to college and succeed at their dreams." Meanwhile junior rather than majoring in some useless degree could make more being a machinist or a plumber. That and actually enjoy being a plumber or a machinist than being paranoid about losing his job at Wal-Mart.
Ah ode to the joys of dreamers and ideologues; their failed aspirations lead to the ruination that is brought in their wake.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Yes he did. Infraction for Spam
Do you like Elder Dragon Highlander? Check out the EDH deck database with more than 150 decks!
Cards I'm selling!!
EDH
UArcanis the Omnipotent
RJaya Ballard, Task Mage
UBRNicol Bolas
Was there a point to this post? What exactly is your point?
Yes, humans show an ability unique among the animal kingdom to consider the "long run." But as animals, this is not prudent for survival. We are instinctively geared to the here and now because way back when that's what was necessary: Why care about signs that a drought will happen in ten years when the big tiger is about to chase you down right now?
Note also that pre-planned infrastructure is a rare occurrence. Cities, for example, were usually grown piecemeal as people moved in and built houses. Planned cities were usually surveyed in the modern era or rebuilt after some catastrophic event (see: Paris in the Napoleonic era for the latter, or Phoenix, Arizona for the former). Usually it happens according to supply and demand. Forcing some plan also carries a certain sort of risk; that is, it assumes everything will go according to plan. See Stalin's five-year plans.
Oh, and machinists and plumbers need some sort of technical training, whereas Wal-Mart doesn't even require perfect English skills.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Unfortunately, European countries are not populated by the belief itself, but rather by the people who bring it forward - and many of them interpret it in the wrong way. It's not a problem of inherent religious differences, any more than Sicilian organized crime in America was a problem of inherent racial differences. But it is a problem.
So what? Do these claims alter the statistical facts?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And what relevance does that point have to the claim that there is a problem with Muslim assimilation in Western Europe?
Usually, when people try to finagle statistics to their advantage by playing around with language, they don't come right out and admit it. I applaud your bravery.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
<insert jank ba here>+4 years of study=Wal Mart
Technical training for <insert good blue collar job here>+2 years=comfortible life
The isue with planning ahead is that it works often times without being an idealistic fool like Mao or Stalin. You monitor and adjust your strategy.
Sure cities grow in wierd ways, however Eisenhower did have forsight when the highways were constructed, no?
Roman aqueduct system in part is still in use.
You cannot preplan every minutia, but you can preplan major directions with proper micromanagement and a realistic macro goal.
To be honest, people have "bucked the trend" more than once and it's often considered some of the major "achievements" for a people ironically.
We're beyond the excuse of being stupid animals. The fault is now that of the specie, not evolution.
Besides, I'm on the nurture AND nature side of the argument anyway. It's when you combine the effects of human nature with the aspect of nurturing some prudence you increase the likelihood of an improved society. If anything, some aspects of the WWII generation showed this as well as the "founding fathers" era. Those eras aren't perfect by a very long shot, but we do benefit a lot from their preplanning.
[quote=Biosphere]I think you're to much out on making points and crically analyzing what someone says... I'm not trying to break down your point of view; just sharing mine. No more than that. I cannot fully express myself in this language logically because it is not my own, maybe that's why whatever I try to say does not come out very... Convincing.
But for the sake of making points and stuff; I have not made any claim for some problem with Muslim assimilation I can remember, what I said it what I said alone and there is no deeper meaning or another point I want to make with what I said; I honestly believe that the Islam belief itself, how it's written down in the Koran, is no more violent, even less violent, than the Christian belief. That's all I'm saying about Muslims and stuff.
The whole thing about Europe and stuff is just that as Dutchmen, America is a country hard to understand. There are a lot of things about your country that I find very strange.. And then people started saying stuff about Europe and I then said that I'm not European, because such a country does not exist... So that some things that might be true for Europe, do not have to be true for an individual country...
[quote=Biosphere]
Europe is typically associated with a specific "continent/area" and then broken down by country statistically for studies, the same with the United States to states or Canada to providences. It's the nature of how people analyze cultures. You start with the macro and then move onward to the micro level. The issue isn't the "claim to be a single country," it's the nature and way that studies are tallied and analyzed globally.
You're argument about the concept of "European doesn't exist" holds true for "America" as well to some degree, there are extremely different subsects of pocket cultures found all through out the continent. You can also famously find the differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada as well. Again, you're denying the way that social scientists break down cultural trends. You are a European as well as Denmarksman to a social scientist as many here are American as to a New Yorker is the same person.
The questions you ask are complex, it's similar to "Why is Japan more conservative than Europe?"
These are the intentions of the original founders for the Constitution, it doesn't answer all your questions but it does give insight to some of your questions.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm
If you're asking the concept about the "City on the Hill," it began here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan
Find a book on Puritanism, but they were the first to want to escape the ravages of Europe during the British Civil War and wanted to perfect society as humanly possible and then bring it back to the continent.
Furthermore, if you want to be taken more seriously I'd advise to take out assumed "truism" like the potent theory of "media control." It's consumerism and culture of debt more so than the "media," and that is an issue every where.
If anything, if you're really interested in attaining the "real answers" the best thing is to read up on American history and analyze the trends yourself. However, like anything European mind sets are as easily influenced by their media and popular culture as Americans are.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
True. However, you're missing the third piece of that hierarchy.
<insert relevant B.A. here> + 4 years of study + (<insert relevant graduate study here> + X years of study, for a given X) = very comfortable life.
We need people at all ends. Although I'd like to think that Wal-Mart and other menial jobs would go to people without any education, such that they could afford to receive technical training or even higher education.
Haha, I wouldn't call either of those men "idealistic" or "foolish." They certainly got exactly what they wanted, even if those under them died horribly.
You do know why the highway system was constructed, right? It's the same reason as why Hitler built the Autobahn: To facilitate the effective movement of military troops and war materiel. It wasn't foresight in the way I think you mean it, because he was planning a defense in case of war. Now the interstate highway system is notably effective in facilitating trade and the movement of products.
That's better. However, the aqueducts weren't all conceived of at once; it was still a piecemeal operation carried out to facilitate the growth of individual cities as needed.
Actually, you could go a step further and try to eliminate the need for micromanagement altogether; ever heard of "spontaneous order"?
But we're not inherently beyond our hardwired instincts. Culturally, yes, we can and should move on from the basic nature which enabled us to survive in small family groups on the open savanna but which is now unsuitable for the modern world.
How do you think consumerism can be propagated, anyhow? By playing to the basic human survival instinct and corrupting it. That's like how certain animals in captivity won't stop eating when presented with food, because their instinct tells them to stock up for a time of hardship that never comes.
This may be true, but Europe has far less media than America has.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
And studies have shown that parents are also very likely to influence the child's spending habits as an adult through their own example of spending (not what they say). If the parents are spindlethrifts, then the child is statistically very likely to be a spindlethrift as well. Sure the child will consume (nature), however the child won't become engorged by consumer debt (nurture).
Again, people aren't the typical "animal" that people seem to think they are. There's only a few animals that can really be compared with humanity for it's uniqueness.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I don't mean access exactly, I just mean that there are fewer European media corporations. I mean, most of the time it's one or two companies (see: the BBC) that own a lot of television channels, or it's state media, or whatever. Print media doesn't have the same lack of competition (at least, from what I know), but then again we're talking about relatively small countries compared to a populous and consumer-oriented United States. If we want a channel dedicated entirely to golf, that's what we'll get, dammit!
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
This is true, although I would imagine this also gives you a certain bit of redundancy. Obviously the rate of multilingualism is higher in Europe than in America (where we think people from other parts of our own country talk funny), but that still doesn't eliminate the fact that you get what amounts to French, German, Dutch, Italian, and English versions of the local news.
EDIT: Wait, this is the "Obama wins!" thread...? Heh.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Apparently so. I think he's off to a good start. He is living out some of the ideals that won him the job, such as brining in all parties involved (ex: meeting with all the generals invovled in Iraq).
he does not have the super majority in the senate. there is still filibusters that can occur.
as it looks now coleman is going to win his seat. after the recount he is up by 635 votes.
there is still a decision on what to do with the ballot challanges, however by the looks of it he is going to win.
which mean a 58-42 vote in the senate. obama is going to have to work hard to get some of his agenda through. he is going to have to do what he said and work with the other side and he is going to have to make concessions.
otherwise he is going to have a difficult time getting anything done.
i think the senate republicans are a united group or at least i hope they are on certain issues.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There could be filibusters in the Senate even if the Democrats did win 60 seats. Bear in mind that there are conservative and moderate Democrats who side with the Republicans on a lot of issues (and vice versa). The "magic number" that makes filibusters impossible is a myth.
Yep, and it's a good thing too. We've seen what happens when things get "too easy" for a President (even when the Congress is stacked against him!)... all the options aren't put on the table. I really hope the Republicans can revert back to their "small government, fiscal responsibility" platform instead of the "family values" schlock. That's not politics. We need a little more diametric opposition and not just on the beliefs end of things... differing policy would help too. Currently both parties have the "let's spend" solution to everything; it's just a matter of where the money should go. One party (I'm thinking the GOP here) should take the "how about let's not" solution and then real compromises can be made.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Small government doesn't work, neither does big government. It's necessary government that works. However, "necessary government" is always hijacked by ideologues and greed more oft than naught.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/06/shinseki.obama.cabinet/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
This is just so cool. Obama's cabinet is filling up to the brim with (arguably) the best qualified persons for their respective jobs. As opposed to Bush's cabinet, which was full of persons who just said, "Yes, sir!" a lot.
A friend of mine said that it was a decision that was bad for him but good for the party. I reluctantly agree, but I still don't think she needs any more face time on the world stage.
I know many people expected Obama to fill his cabinet with idealistic extremists (some even wanted it), but he's honestly surprised me with his ability to select a cabinet. I think he'll be a better president than I envisioned for sure.