New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2006 13:14 On 6 Aug 2006 06:21:59 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On 4 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> > >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:39:24 +0100, Eeyore >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Bill Sloman wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in >> >> >> bericht news:dp85d21r71jr2495asoedog49cp1kskcnk(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:26:26 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> >> >> > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>In 1000 years the only thing the US will be remembered for will be the >> >> >> >>moon landings. Not its brief shot at empire before the Chinese dominated >> >> >> >>the globe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Dirk >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In 1950, at the end of 1000 years of European domination of the world, >> >> >> > there were 22 democracies. By 2000, after a mere 50 years of evil >> >> >> > American hegemony, there were 120, by far the greatest number in >> >> >> > history. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 120/22 = 5.4, a pretty serious factor. >> >> >> >> >> >> And you are counting Zimbabwe, Chile, Indonesia and Pakistan as democracies? >> >> >> >> >> >> How many of the new democracies are new nation states? Papua-New Guinea >> >> >> probably rates as a democracy in your book, but it does not score too well >> >> >> on any index of democratic function. >> >> >> >> >> >> In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and >> >> >> the one for 2000. >> >> > >> >> >It seems he may have found this piece of serious disinformation ! >> >> >http://www.hooverdigest.org/003/diamond.html >> >> > >> >> >I see they can't list them either. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Whatever you do, don't google "total number democracies world", or you >> >> might encounter facts that you don't want to know. >> >> >> >> Oh, I'd also avoid "Berlin Wall" if I were you. >> > >> >If you count pre-Berlin Wall soviet satellites as non-democracies, >> >> and you don't??!!! >> >> > and >> >claim that they mostly became democracies after Yeltsin took over in >> >Russia, you do get a marked step forward for democracy. Curiously, many >> >of them have taken to re-electing the old Communist party politicians. >> >> Well, take a look at these... >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World >> >> http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf >> >> >> > >> >In the old Soviet Union, you had to be a member of the communist party >> >to eligible to stand in an election. In the U.S. you have to be a >> >millionaire, or be supported by a miilionaire for it to be woth the >> >trouble to stand for election, which doesn't strike me as all that >> >different. >> >> >> Not so. Money is clearly necessary to mount a successful political >> campaign on any but the local level, but the money is available to >> virtually any viable candidate; he/she needn't be rich, and many >> mayors, govenors, and representatives aren't. > >"An honest politican is one who stays bought". The US system makes it >essentail for elected politicians to have access to a load of cash >shortly before every election, which does give people with money a >disproportionate amount of influence. > >Hence my comment about successful politicans being either rich, or >patsies for the rich. Most political campaign money in the US is raised in small amounts, increasingly on the Internet. I think I read that the Republicans actually raise money in smaller increments than the Democrats. In the UK and mainland Europe, how do politicial candidates pay for the incidental expenses (travel and such) of campaigning? John
From: Eeyore on 7 Aug 2006 13:11 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:00:40 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Jim Yanik wrote: > > > >> Saddam was using Oil-for-Food money to rebuild his palaces and fund WMD > >> programs > > > >There weren't any WMDs ! > > > >How many times do you need to be reminded ? > > There were no WMDs found because they were moved before we got > there. A few ppl like to believe that. Is there any evidence of this ? Graham
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2006 13:20 On 5 Aug 2006 19:21:40 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:11:01 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Frank Bemelman wrote: >> > >> >> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> schreef in bericht >> >> news:44d34be9$0$2814$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> > >> >> > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in >> >> > bericht news:dp85d21r71jr2495asoedog49cp1kskcnk(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >> In 1950, at the end of 1000 years of European domination of the world, >> >> >> there were 22 democracies. By 2000, after a mere 50 years of evil >> >> >> American hegemony, there were 120, by far the greatest number in >> >> >> history. >> >> >> >> >> >> 120/22 = 5.4, a pretty serious factor. >> >> > >> >> > And you are counting Zimbabwe, Chile, Indonesia and Pakistan as >> >> > democracies? >> >> > >> >> > How many of the new democracies are new nation states? Papua-New Guinea >> >> > probably rates as a democracy in your book, but it does not score too well >> >> > on any index of democratic function. >> >> > >> >> > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and >> >> > the one for 2000. >> >> >> >> Does the actual number matter here? This is just one of JL's famous smoke >> >> curtains, pretending as if the increase in democracies is an all American >> >> achievement, for which the world - again - has to be thankful or something. >> > >> >Indeed. The USA probably contributed fairly insignificantly to that number. >> > >> >> Well, then, what has happened in the last 50 years to produce such an >> unprecedented change? > >The most powerful and richest country in the world claimed to be >democratic and claimed that it liked to see democratic governments in >other countries, so a whole lot of authoritarian and oligarchic regimes >did a bit of window dressing and claimed to be democracies. It is >called "fawning". So, it follows, this is just propaganda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf What I think is that people who have no principles also have no ability to recognize principles in others. John
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Aug 2006 13:21 John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:25:09 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On 4 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> >>>> America itself is only fond of democracy as long as it produces >>>> governments that America finds sympathetic. >>> Agreed. They are called "democracies." >> America has had *no trouble at all* supporting undemocratic countries. That's another >> reason you're seen as 2 faced. >> >> Graham > > The Cold War caused some unsavory distortions. It's over. Hell, the > Hundred Years War is over, too. But now we have the neverending 'war on terror' where all those self serving abuses can be taken out, dusted off, and set on their feet again. Only the excuses change. Any other reason why 'we' are sucking up to a nuclear armed Islamic military dictator? Dirk
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2006 13:23
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:55:35 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:11:01 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >Frank Bemelman wrote: >> >> >> > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and >> >> > the one for 2000. >> >> >> >> Does the actual number matter here? This is just one of JL's famous smoke >> >> curtains, pretending as if the increase in democracies is an all American >> >> achievement, for which the world - again - has to be thankful or something. >> > >> >Indeed. The USA probably contributed fairly insignificantly to that number. >> >> Can you really be *THAT* stupid? > >Do please by all means name those countries made into democracies by the USA since >1950. > >Graham > You could start with Poland and Hungary and those guys. John |