Ja Wohl! Elephants now control the Senate!

[Einsamer_Wolf]

you are right--there is a no such thign as a free lunch, The essence of the problem is whether to foot the bill on teh taxpayer, or to allow a greater number of persons to buy their own lunch by encouraging commerce and trade and thereby create jobs. LBJ and the welfate states of Europe are failing or have failed, we are succeeding. A greater number of people in our country have jobs and livelihoods. Our nation, as a whole, is much stronger economically than any other on the globe. That should end the argument there.

Best Wishes,

EW

[Tiwaz]

But behold, your concentration to economy brings to you new problems.
Your system has it's failings and weaknesses like them all. We simply consider weaknesses and shortcomings of your system to be unacceptable so we use different one. And on another scale you could check out if you can find another as large nation on this planet as US. Canada has landmass but no population. Russia was wrecked by communism and China...

Combined Europe rivals US on practically every level and surpasses it on many other but can't be compared easily since it's collection of nations and not single entity like US. However, that may change in the future if EU manages to get it's system working.

Meanwhile comparing whole US to other nations is not good way to do it.
Comparing single states might give more correct result but again it would take something away from complete picture.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

I will even go with you at a pro-rata we approach. We do not have double digit unemployment rates. It is as simple that. Keep running into a brick wall, if you wish. Maybe in another fifry years... But I think by then the damage might be irreversible. If you like realizing only 40% of your income, so be it. But commerce overall will be hindered, and investors will go elsewhere.

Regards,

EWE

[Tiwaz]

On the other hand we lack biggest amount of people living below poverty line from all first world countries.

Or our scool systems which actually provide us with educated people unlike in certain country which appears to have huge problems getting it's children educated.

Double digit unemployment yes, due to rapid automatisation of factories and other such places which used to provide lots of jobs. And it's not like you wouldn't be losing companies to third world sweatshops.

And guess what, amount of unemployed has greatly stabilised and in some cases even become lower. And in about one decade we in Finland will have more jobs than we have workers.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

Time will tell

About the poverty--America is unique but is so large, and has diverse regions and localiteis. Biloxi Miss is much differnet than Manhattan, whioch is much different than Portland Oregon, whihc is much different than Green Bay, WIsconsin. He have certain challenges in this way that Europe does not> That does nto necessarily implicate our economc policies. It is more just an accident of history.
To close the matter, I will just sya you go your way, I will go mine, if Republican successes continue. In the end, free enterprise which creates jobs will prove superior to big government entitlements.
About education--American high school are a joke. But that is more of a cultural thing htan anyhting else. Alas, we do not ahve an academic tradition like the Gymnasium in Germany. But dont think this is a problem solved by money. Public schools in Washington DC are among the most heavily funded, and yet one of the most abismal failures. It is really about discipline and regiment. Whatever shortcomings we have on this however, I can assure you that almost no European universtiy can compare with America's best school, Maybe Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne are a match. But overall, we have the finest Universtiy system in the world. If we did not, we could not recover form an admittedly failing publci school system. but again, thats not about big spendign. And any event, the schools are a product of Democratic rule. Democrats have had the ball muhc of the time, so the score falls on them. And besides, the teacher's union are strongly Democratic. I think it is time for a change, and have a pride of Elephants dominate the school systems as well!

Warm Regards

EW

[gubra]

Hi again Wolf

You didn't answer the part about oil/terrorism, so I guess you've realized what the real problem are too.
As you says, poverty is caused by the combination of many problems some of wich you mentions. But seriously Wolf, blaming teenage pregnancy on "wrong" trends and cultures is a bit ridicously. There are two reasons for teenage pregnancy, wich both republicans and socialists have, and I guess both you and I wants to keep them.
And finally, it's strange how republicans always deem other thoughts and opinions as socialist. Must be some kind of a narrow mind.

Best regards

Gubra

[Einsamer_Wolf]

Well, the massive welfare schemes of many of the European ountries are socialist. They are still capitalist, in that they do not have command economies like Soviets. But any regime where one only 40% of his income is socialist. You are taking what the inidivudal earns and giving it to the collective mass. If you are nto convinced this unwise economic policy, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I am just thankful that I am not subject to such oppressive tax schemes
About oil. However this crisis may have originally started is irrelevant, IF anything, it is about our support for Israel. But irrespective of what we may or may not have doen to purturb the arab world, he bottomline is that there was an attack on United States soil that killed over three thousand people, and crippled our economy. We have a right of self defense, and to attack and destroy those responsible for this. This is our right as a sovereign nation. THe operation in Afghanistan was reasonalby tailored to this goal. Likewise, Iraq has bad intentions, and poses an immediate threat to United States and World security. ANd if the UN in its luaghable inefficacy is unable to contend with this threat, we will. ANd I will return this post to the original topic by noting that we will because we are presently under Reoublcian rule. Thank god for that. THe @#%-footing and handwrenching of hte likes of Gore and the jackasses might veryt welel have been the end of us. As a final note, you folks in NOrway do not question a nation's right to self defense, do you?

Warm Regards,

Einsamer Wolf

[sid guttridge]

Whoa there, Einsamer.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, there is one particular point I would question.

What is the evidence that Iraq poses an IMMEDIATE threat to the US and World security?

I appreciate that Iraq has a vicious regime, with past designs on some of its immediate neighbours and distant designs on Israel, and that few, including me, would lose sleep if it were overthrown. But where is this IMMEDIATE threat to the US and the World at large?

The other thing is that all societies are in dynamic tension. When there is no tolerated counterpoint you get dictatorship of the right or left. You need the bleeding heart liberals to prevent your right wing administration from riding rough shod over all restraints short of the Constitution. You are likely soon not only to have a conservative executive and legislature, but judiciary as well. This is a not an altogether healthy situation.

The sooner the extra-Constitutional checks and balances are restored to the American body politic the more the rest of us can rest easy that the Republican elephant doesn't turn rogue.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

What is the evidence that Iraq poses an IMMEDIATE threat to the US and World security?

Well, all we we really know is Saddam's enduriing intentiton to flut coalition and UN demands for arms inpsection and arms destruction. We know he has a history of attacking first, in ways that maximize the number of innocent casualites. I cannot say whether it is an immedite threat in terms that it could happen any minute. THe moment at whcih Iraq is capable of using some sort of nuclear, biolgiocal, or chemical agent could be several months or several years. The immediacy lies in the fact we do not know, and have an undetermined period of time to act before it is too late

You also write, You need the bleeding heart liberals to prevent your right wing administration from riding rough shod over all restraints short of the Constitution. Well, we have tried a number of times things the Democrats way. A number of tiems Democrats have controlled all three branches. No one cried fould about that. But they should, becuase Democrats time and again have failed. LBJ< Carter, Clinton failed. And thank God us Elephants now occupy both the white house and the Congress. It has been almost fifty years since we have controlled both arms. Its time to give our way a try.

As for restoring so called "extra-Constitutional checks and balances" whatever extra-constitutioanl might mean, Democrats are no prize for this either. In the 60s and 70s, they crammed the United States Supreme with liberal do gooder justices who flouted the text and history of the Constitution to hand down rulings that thye just felt were right. Dont talk to us Republicans about the COnsitution--we are not the one's who commandered the judiciary as a third avenue to cram liberal policies down voters' throats.

How do democrats protect the Constition. By obstructiong a necessary war effrot against terrorism and Iraq? What polices aobut Bush and the Republcians are of concern to you?

You are also wrong about another thing--on most points we control the Judiciary. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas rule solidly on the conservative side, though there is nothing activist about their rulings. Kennedy and O'Connor, Republcian appoiunted justices are swing votes, but more often side with us, than the liberals Bryer, (the hated) Ginsburg (ehhh), Stevens, and Souter. (as a side note, I think Souter writes the worst, most convuluted, up in the clouds opinions ever.

Warm Regards,

EW

[sid guttridge]

Hi Einsamer,

So, there is no identifiable immediate Iraqi threat, only an immediate US requirement to sort out Iraq now. That is clearer.

"Extra-consitutional" means exactly what it says - outside the constitution. Your constitution provides legal checks and ballances. However, the outcome of elections also provides checks and balances, such as when there is a President of one party and a Congress of another. This extra-constitutional restraint no longer exists and the Republicans can now change any law short of the constitution itself.

From your own evidence I am not wrong on the judiciary. You count only three conservatives out of nine.

I would also be a little apprehensive if the Democrats held all the levers of power for the same reasons.

I am less worried about the policies of Bush and the Republicans than I am about the unrestrained internal political environment in which they are now able to operate. Thank God it takes a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

Well, no we cant do wahtever we want in the Judiciary. But thats not what its about, at least not till the Democrats commandeered teh court in the 60s and 70s as anoter venue to push their agenda. But the swing vote of Kennedy and Oconnor notwithstanding, the Supreme is generally conservative at this time.
About Iraq, Immediacy comes from the inabiltiy to know exactly when this threat will explode in our faces. It is immediate in terms of how we have to do somethign now, before Saddamm has a chance to hurt innocent people. I cannot fathom how people do not see this.
Your concerns about balance and power notwithstanding, we have the mandate now. But its not like we can do whatever we want. We have a small majority in the Senate. However, I do not see what publicized plank in the Republican platform agenda would be a concern. Is their some pending piece of leigslation sponsored by the Republicans that has you concerned?

Best Wishes

EW

[Rob S.]

Thank God it takes a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution.

I'm not sure where you're from Cid m8, but our 2 party system is quite good at staying moderate. We do not suffer from "nationalist liberation parties" that receive %15 of the votes each election. I don't think either party is concerned with changing the constitution. On the contrary, it is the Democrats that like to find flaws and holes where the government can intervene in the people's lives. The first 10 ammendments serve only 1 purpose: to tell the government what it can't do.

As to whether or not Saddam is a threat I cannot say. I used to lean towards the Hawks in ousting him, but now I'm not so sure. I think we've given him enough heat in the past few months. He's not about to upset all the violent anti-war protesters in Turkey. Funny how you didn't hear about such things during the Gulf War.

It does bother me though, that Europeans are so eager to protect Saddam. I mean, most countries don't plan on helping even if a war were to break out.

<sigh>

Europeans love a peaceful dictator I guess.

[Tiwaz]

You might start to understand if you looked at history of Europe.

There isn't an inch of land that isn't soaked in blood over millenias of history so I find it rather understandable that Euros have found their limit and prefer peaceful life above unnecessary wars.

Oh and Wolf, about those couple universities you have that are clearly exellent. (all your universities are NOT amongs the best of the world)

Have you thought how many people actually go through them? Maybe some puny thousands may graduate from those every year. So couple good universities do not fix problems you have in your school system since so small amount of people go through them. Huge majority of your population still goes through mediocre at best education which produces huge poorly educated masses.


Also, since I reloaded my batteries over weekend let's go back to that poverty you tried to ignore. It's just fine as long as you are not one of those poor sobs who end up at the streets.

I would say that in society where my dog would be better off than so large part of population there is something really wrong. Money or economical progress are not worth it.

I think life is about making enough money to live nicely. You, based on your comments, think life is about living to make as much money as possible. Personally I think that last way to live life is kind of twisted and sick but it's everyones right to live like that if they wish.

That kind of gives us opportunity to get back to quality of life. You said that you disagree with UN about what is REAL quality of life. Now would you mind giving us clear explanation what you consider to be "right" way to measure quality of life?

[sid guttridge]

Hi Einsamer,

So, I presume that because North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, (which Iraq cannot be proved to have) and admits it (which Iraq does not) and has killed millions of it own citizens (several times more than Iraq) and is still patently doing so in very large numbers (which Iraq currently is not), and is still technically at war with a neighbour (which Iraq is not) that the US armed forces will be used against North Korea first?

If not, why not?

Sid

[sid guttridge]

Hi Rob S.,

In answer to your question, I am British.

We have pretty much the same first-past-the-post electoral system as you. This makes it extremely difficult for third-party centrist or extreme left or right political parties to get elected, which means that you or we don't have "nationalist liberation parties" represented in Congress/Parliament. People of that persuasion in the US or UK have two choices - join the right wing of the Republican/Conservative Parties if they want any sort of political representation or remain purist militiamen or BNP activists destined to operate outside the fringes of representative politics.

Just because the US or UK don't have such parties making significant impacts on electoral politics in the way they do in some parts of Europe, doesn't mean that we don't have similar proportions of the population with similar right wing inclinations. We are saved from them not by the good judgement of our populations but by the democratic limitations of our electoral systems.

Proportional representaion may be more democratic, but it is sometimes less practical as it can give extremists a veto over national governments struggling to keep a coalition together, as is sometimes the case in Israel, for example.