OT: America - Forgot how to lead

[Merryprankster]

After eight years of one of the most benighted administrations in U.S. history we are finally on the cusp of ridding ourselves of an enormous impediment: a "leadership," that has no idea what the word means. Initially, I was naive enough to hope that the mere transfer of power from one administration to a future one would solve at least half of the problems.

Depressingly, I no longer believe that. Instead, I have slowly reached the conclusion that the failure in leadership is a collective problem, shared throughout the United States. I'm certain that it would be unpopular to say this. It would not get me elected. Fortunately, I do not find myself in that position. Let me be even more blunt: sometime between the end of the Cold War and 2008, America forgot how to lead. Instead, we've conflated power and leadership. The two are hardly synonymous, as we have learned the hard way: being the world's only superpower does not secure you a leadership role. In contrast, leadership generates power, even - and especially - in areas where it did not even exist before.

This is a lesson that Americans took to heart for the last half of the 20th century. We took a leadership role in the creation of international institutions that, to paraphrase Dag Hammarskjold, "prevented hell on earth." We made scientific, technological, agricultural, and engineering leaps that paved the way for the 21st century, and an improved lot in life for billions around the world.

We funded things like the space program. We helped build and sustain the UN. As a society, across industry, the military, sciences, and politics, we invested in advancement and in the future. I hardly believe it was idyllic - the threat of nuclear war loomed large, and there were many mis-steps and some outright abuses along the way. But, the charted course was one of progress, and if not magnanimity, than at least of enlightened, and generally inclusive, self-interest, when weighed against the annals of human history.

Our leadership, and a proven track record of "getting things done," generated wide ranging and far reaching power. This leadership was anchored by a faith in humanity's ability to change things for the better. We recognized, intuitively if not explicitly, that the fate of our nation and its people was inextricably bound to those worldwide. And we exercised our power, however imperfectly, largely with that consideration in mind.

Ironically, Americans have begun abnegating their leadership roles, even as increasing connectivity ensures that almost all of our problems are collectively shared and require increasingly interdependent solutions. What is a problem for a Bolivian farmer is, in some way, a problem for us. Do you believe that there are too many people on the planet? Then your primary issue should be educating women worldwide - in places where women receive strong educations, birthrate declines dramatically, and often dips below replacement rates. Biofuels are the solution to the fossil fuel problem...

At least until poor nations around the world go hungry.

Somewhere along the way, we began using our power selfishly, as distinct from in our previous, collectively self-interested way. Detroit rails against increased mileage and emission standards. Imagine what would happen if they embraced them? I posit that American auto makers would become industry leaders in clean, efficient cars within a decade or less. We refuse to pull together a comprehensive energy policy or emissions standards, and often it is because "it doesn't matter what we do if China doesn't follow through."

Leadership requires us to do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do! Because getting out ahead, just as in the space race, will generate new discoveries, new technologies that may improve the lot for everyone, and generate entirely new market sectors and opportunities - new places for U.S. power to arise. The United States is still a bastion of innovation and opportunity, and will be for many years - these types of things are absolutely achievable, but only if we opt to lead.

But lately, we've just been scared. We protect a dying manufacturing industry addicted to the old ways, instead of creating space and pressure for changes that could open up vibrant new sectors. We try to solve immigration problems - built on our revered law of "supply and demand," NOT by trying to help Mexico improve itself, but by building a fence - and the Maginot Line worked SO well for the French. We decry NAFTA, although evidence suggests it increases economic growth - it's just in new or different market sectors. This is power exercised in selfish ways, not in self-interested ways. When did the world become zero-sum?

When used selfishly, power is a finite commodity that can be exhausted. When used to lead, it generates more power. Leadership and selfishness are mutually exclusive, and somehow, some way, we need to remember that.

[Samurai Jack]

Wow, are you sure you're not running for office? :)

Good observations, all, but as the issues expand ever further beyond what is known, entrenched, and well understood, dosen't it become increasingly unlikely that a single entity serving it's own self-interest will be able to effect the changes that will inevitably be required?

In other words, should it come as a great surprise that we have reached a point where the problems of the collective may be too large for a single entity such as the U.S. to manage?

Perhaps we should begin cooperating with organizations such as the U.N., the World Health Organization, and honoring our agreements with other nations (Kyoto accord comes to mind) rather than representing our own self intrests to the exclusion and detriment of all. I believe that there is an "almost majority" here in the U.S, that would like to see that happen, but we can hardly get into agreement within our own nation... such a large problem...

Do you have any thoughts on how we might practically bring about such changes without being forced into some sort of crisis, such as the Cold War?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Biofuels are the solution to the fossil fuel problem...

Reply]
I am not even remotely convinced of this. I feel solar/battery electric is the solution.

Bio fuels will require VAST amounts of land space to grow fuel crops...in an already suffering eco system. I think they just exchange one problem for another....like those stupid mercury bulbs everyone "Thinks" are so good.

We now have the battery technology, AND the solar technology to make it happen without taxing the land resources of bio fuels. It really is the cleanest, best energy source there is.

[bodhitree]

How do we change things?


1. Vote smart

2. Demand more from your politicians, call, email, stop by thier offices, write editorials, engage in intelligent discussion, and do all of these in a tactful and cooperative way.

3. Don't support screaming pundits on either side, encourage pragmatic politicians and pundits.

4. Live in a way you believe more people should behave.

5. Teach your kids to be how you think people should behave.

I'm sure there are many other ways.....

[cjurakpt]

well put, but I'd characterize your polemic not as the end-all, but rather as the springboard off of which we need to launch an entirely new dialogue regarding not only America's roll in the world, but really the way in which consciousness needs must change in the coming decades in order to fully understand the paradigm shift we are currently undergoing, that is, we are now, more so than ever, inextricably linked as a species, to the point where the concept of nationalism is almost necessarily a thing of the past

to wit, the global credit crunch - no one, not even Iceland, is free from the effects of this; same with the ill-conceived backing of corn-based biofuels by the US government, having, at least in part, a disastrous effect on world food prices; of course, there is also the CO2 your SUV in Boston pumps into the air having it effect far afield (unless you don't buy the climate change argument - that's ok, crawl back under your rock, wait a few decades more, see what happens...)

interestingly enough, both Time Magazine and NY Times Magazine have "green" issues this week; in regards to the former, UN SG BK Moon writes inspiringly about his belief that tackling climate change will mobilize the world towards more balance; and the lead article argues that America must take on a leadership roll in the latest war, this one to save the global environment; so perhaps, at this dark hour, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, one that will shine itself on the realization that there is no us / them, only "we"; and America can take a leadership roll in moving into a new "greener" consciousness, which, hopefully will temper the arrogance we have displayed of late and reconcile ourselves with the rest of our Gaia community

now excuse me, i have to go outside and hug a tree...

[Merryprankster]

SJ - precisely my point. THIS era of Globalization and the complex interdependence it brings makes it paramount for the United States to exercise a leadership role. We're well positioned for it, despite Iraq, and can must more resources and energy than any other country to help solve some of these problems.

Do I have any idea how to begin that process? I believe it could be done if we began to focus on the "5E's" Energy, economics, education, the environment, and engagement. These would be priorities; all decisions and policies must somehow be tied back to these priorities.

Does this sound like hippie crap? Well, I disagree - imagine a military unfettered by energy supply lines because we have reliable portable, "anywhere" power. Who can argue with that kind of force projection capability? Impossible you say? Ok, well, reduced reliance is still crucial. The speed of our main battle forces vastly outstrips our logistics capabilities. The longer we go without re-fueling, the better off we are.

If you don't think this is a big deal, you haven't been paying attention - battery weight is increasingly a problem for our troops, because energy storage is not very dense, and we don't have universal power supplies for our stuff. That's just one example. I used it simply to show that these priorities must be executed using all the levers of U.S. power, and that the military is one facet that certainly can and should be included, not just to the benefit of others, but to the benefit of our warfighting and security capability.


RD1 A - I agree. Biofuels are clearly NOT the solution, unless some of the algae ideas pan out and are scalable, or we really get some of the cellulosic methods off the ground. That was entirely the point - biofuels looked kind of attractive for a bit, but recent food shortages are demonstrating otherwise.

cjurakpt - Amen. Leadership is ALWAYS a springboard. It's neverending. When one goal is accomplished, you turn your energies to another improvement.

Now, where would I start?

Energy - We need a space-race type push for alternative energy, that includes stringent new energy consumption requirements that force improved efficiency. Taxes/fees on gasoline and the like would actually reduce our economy's sensitivity to oil price shocks - (when taxes are a major portion, the price becomes relatively inelastic, by comparison). The revenue from those taxes would fund government/industry/academic joint efforts towards cleaner, more sustainable energy.

Education - our educational system is tooled for the industrial/manufacturing era. We now live heavily in an informational economy, where productivity and business advantage (and, indeed, other advantages) are determined by having informational and analytical edges. As a consequence of this information rich environment, critical thinking skills are more important than they ever were. Ironically, this means a return to a "classical" education, emphasizing broad based exposure to a variety of subjects, and strong classes in rhetoric and philosophy. The school of deconstructionism must be abandoned as well, or confined merely to the analysis of literature. Only then will we be equipped to handle this and turn it to our advantage. Students electing not to go to college for whatever reason must be given the same sort of educational assistance and help to pursue skill sets that are valuable in our new economy.

Environment - Polluters must be made to pay. Emissions standards must be improved. Agricultural subsidies must disappear. We must use our leverage as the world's greatest consumers to slap a "pollution tax," on goods from abroad (and in the states), which offsets the cheapness of labor available overseas. It could be calculated in a manner similar to a VAT tax - a viable model. The EU would probably jump on board on this. We should have an office in the state department or the UN or some such that assists other countries that rely on manufacturing or natural resource extraction to do so in a sustainable, smart way.

Engagement - we can't do it alone. It's that simple. We need to bring partners on board. Outreach is huge. Assisting other countries will be huge. Helping them develop and grow is huge. We can't match FDI, but we can do something corporations typically don't do - we can improve education, and assist with infrastructure development and protection.

Economics - see above. All of these will, IMO, generate new areas for increased economic size across the world, and improved growth overall.

[AJM]

Claptrap BS.

[Merryprankster]

AJM!

A thoughtful riposte! Witty, incisive and arch!

Generations of thinkers and comedians bow to your mastery of the english language.:rolleyes:

[rogue]

MP, nice on paper but I doubt any of those taxes would actually go towards what you're saying. Consumers want cheap over clean, so China for example is the polluter/supplier of choice. When consumers want clean they'll drive manufactures to it, until then the anti-nuke, anti-oil, anti-wind and anti-solar will hold sway and keep the status quo.

Hope this makes some sense as I was up with a sick kid all night.

[Merryprankster]

Rogue, I'm with you to a degree, but not all the way.

In the first instance, you're right - congress has a nasty habit of treating all taxes as general revenue.

As far as "consumers will drive them to it," I don't agree with that entirely. Consumers will have something to do with it, sure, but government regulation will as well. No consumer ever wanted bad food and snake-oil drugs, but that problem didn't even start to get solved until the pure food and drug act.

The reason for this is pretty simple. Caveat Emptor puts effective controls on suppliers when social circles are small - if local farmer bob taints his stuff, you can be certain everybody is going to find out, and bob's business will tank. But when supply chains are global, there has to be regulation or consumers will be had. It's a lot harder for the consumer to hold the supplier/producer accountable - plausible deniability exists unless somebody (ie the gubmint), makes an effort to trace the problem back to its roots (tainted dog food, for instance).

That's basically what was happening in the F and D act of 1906 - supply chains were becoming longer, you no longer were buying from the local guy you'd known for 14 years or more. Did that act increase prices? You bet. Do you hear anybody really complaining that they can't get their stuff cheaper?

Incidentally, some forms of regulation have the side effect of DECREASING costs over time because they reduce settlement costs and insurance and underwriting premiums. Something to consider.

So regulation is going to matter.

[cjurakpt]

Claptrap BS.

I find myself helpless, caught in the crushing grip of his reason...

[cjurakpt]

MP

nice points all around - what we desperately need is a balanced, realpolitik assessment in terms of cost/benefits analysis, which, if it's done equitably, I think will unequivocally demonstrate that the ultimately cost-effective choice is sustainability; in a perfect world, tapping into renewable fuel sources (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc.) will help society move away from a corporate resource-control culture to some degree at least; or at the very least, it will change the way corporations do business in terms of the degree of control they exert on the socio-political landscape

the other driving force, innovation, is exciting - in a way, the lack of a single "answer" to say, energy production, will require a highly diversified approach - again, not only helping to change the monopolistic corporate culture, but to raise inherent creativity across the board

education: 100% agree - we need to re-emphasize the fact that humans are being schooled to be good little economic, everyone get along units; we need to radically shift the focus from education of the what to that of the how, and the why; now, honestly, deconstruction per se isn't the problem (actually, most people don't really undesrtand it anyway - it's really more a means of critiquing a "text" for its inherent ambiguities and ultimately its self-contained means of subversion: everything has within itself the inevitability of its opposite: really little more than modern-day yin/yang theory, TBH) - it's the lack of a richness within one's cultural life: what we need is to have everyone overdose on Pushkin, Nabokov, Joyce, etc. etc.; we need to embrace the ambiguus, which is the ground out of which great art / literature arises, and ultimately helps us to come to terms with our own inherently ambiguous, contradictory self-nature; a revolution of consciousness, however unlikely, is really the only true revolution (paraphrasing J. Krishnamurti); certainly, that's not going to happen overnight, maybe never, but the point is to not be afraid of the big bad wolf: rather, we must aggressively avocate the inherent necesity of so-called "useless" things like playing an instrument, learning another language, painting, sculpting, woodworking, gardening - these things are more than just a means unto themselves - but unless you do it, you don't get it; and in the long run, they create better thinkers, more commonality between cultures and increase the ability to empathize in general...

back to the tree...

[Merryprankster]

nice points all around - what we desperately need is a balanced, realpolitik assessment in terms of cost/benefits analysis, which, if it's done equitably, I think will unequivocally demonstrate that the ultimately cost-effective choice is sustainability; in a perfect world, tapping into renewable fuel sources (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc.) will help society move away from a corporate resource-control culture to some degree at least; or at the very least, it will change the way corporations do business in terms of the degree of control they exert on the socio-political landscape

the other driving force, innovation, is exciting - in a way, the lack of a single "answer" to say, energy production, will require a highly diversified approach - again, not only helping to change the monopolistic corporate culture, but to raise inherent creativity across the board

I don't know that I necessarily believe that this sort of thing would change the way corporations do business in terms of the degree of control they exert. I'm not even certain that this is a worthwhile goal. Imagine, for instance, a circumstance in which the prevailing corporate ethic was to deny countries with poor human rights records, or poor pollution regs FDI - whether because they were going to be subject to high fines or whatever. I think we'd go ahead and say that that type of control is positive.

Power is just a tool.

However, I will concur the corporate culture is monopolistic, even so far as to say "of course it is." In the absence of regulation ie, a "truly free market," monopoly or near monopoly (trust like situations) is the inevitable outcome. This is actually the case in nature, when the environment produces highly abundant food; one or two species tend to achieve dominance. By contrast, when food supplies are reduced a little, speciation increases.

The point is this - competition must be continuous and CONTINUAL/CONTINUING, in order to spur innovation. Otherwise, when something "wins" it will continue to do things the successful way, unless conditions change.

The implications on innovation are obvious I think. Fewer parallel avenues of development and fewer "gene pools" reduce the odds of something interesting happening.




education: 100% agree - we need to re-emphasize the fact that humans are being schooled to be good little economic, everyone get along units; we need to radically shift the focus from education of the what to that of the how, and the why; now, honestly, deconstruction per se isn't the problem (actually, most people don't really undesrtand it anyway - it's really more a means of critiquing a "text" for its inherent ambiguities and ultimately its self-contained means of subversion: everything has within itself the inevitability of its opposite: really little more than modern-day yin/yang theory, TBH) - it's the lack of a richness within one's cultural life: what we need is to have everyone overdose on Pushkin, Nabokov, Joyce, etc. etc.; we need to embrace the ambiguus, which is the ground out of which great art / literature arises, and ultimately helps us to come to terms with our own inherently ambiguous, contradictory self-nature; a revolution of consciousness, however unlikely, is really the only true revolution (paraphrasing J. Krishnamurti); certainly, that's not going to happen overnight, maybe never, but the point is to not be afraid of the big bad wolf: rather, we must aggressively avocate the inherent necesity of so-called "useless" things like playing an instrument, learning another language, painting, sculpting, woodworking, gardening - these things are more than just a means unto themselves - but unless you do it, you don't get it; and in the long run, they create better thinkers, more commonality between cultures and increase the ability to empathize in general...


You are spot on with deconstruction. That's precisely my point. It has a limited range of usefulness, and should be confined to such. It does not give leave to abandon reason, and is the wrong tool to apply to many fields. Discussions of TRUTH and discussions of fact may be related, but are not by necessity the same.

In terms of the rest, I was thinking more that right now, we tend to "train." We don't educate. In an information rich environment, the most important thing you do is figure out what information and sources to TRUST. And because of the impersonal nature of information technology, the key to that is going to be critical thinking and analytical skill. Otherwise, you're a potential victim for liars and crazies.

Do I believe this means that everybody is going to be some sort of analytical wizard? The answer is, of course, no. But when was the last time you heard of anybody as a Freshman in college - let alone high school - being forced to take rhetoric as a required class?

And for those who are not college bound - I advocate skill training in a valuable field. We've developed an attitude in this country that skilled labor is somehow not good enough. Artisans, master craftsmen, etc. Absolutely vital, completely honorable, and they make a great living. Not going to college isn't that big a deal. Not creating an avenue for people to become genuinely productive and attain a living is.

[David Jamieson]

I want to jump in here, but nah. NOt gonna bite into this rotten apple of back patting rancid wank fest of "oh america the beautiful aren't we great but where did we go wrong?" Spare us, pleeeeeeaaasse. I will say one small thing though, because what the heck.

Merry, your statement of "power is just a tool" is off kilter.
If anyone thinks power is just a tool, they've never had any significant amount of it.

Power is far more than a tool. It is a ways and means of asserting will and mind across a large sweep of humanity.

Laws are tools invoked by power. Power is manifestation of the will of an individual or small group.

[rogue]

That's basically what was happening in the F and D act of 1906 - supply chains were becoming longer, you no longer were buying from the local guy you'd known for 14 years or more. Did that act increase prices? You bet. Do you hear anybody really complaining that they can't get their stuff cheaper?

I have heard people complain that they can't get their stuff cheaper. Also count in those who shop at Wal-mart which is all about getting stuff cheaper even if it means sometimes compromising price for quality and you find yourself with. a lot of people who want cheap. If people didn't want cheaper goods and services then neither India or China would be where they are today.


Incidentally, some forms of regulation have the side effect of DECREASING costs over time because they reduce settlement costs and insurance and underwriting premiums. Something to consider.

So regulation is going to matter.

I do agree with the last part, as long as the regulation is focused on a certain goal and limited.


Energy - We need a space-race type push for alternative energy, that includes stringent new energy consumption requirements that force improved efficiency. Taxes/fees on gasoline and the like would actually reduce our economy's sensitivity to oil price shocks - (when taxes are a major portion, the price becomes relatively inelastic, by comparison). The revenue from those taxes would fund government/industry/academic joint efforts towards cleaner, more sustainable energy.

The big problem is if the government backs the wrong horse like it is with corn ethanol. I keep hearing about electric cars but from my experience the same people that want those also don't like nukes or coal burning power plants. I think that once again the American people want something for nothing.

[Merryprankster]

I have heard people complain that they can't get their stuff cheaper. Also count in those who shop at Wal-mart which is all about getting stuff cheaper even if it means sometimes compromising price for quality and you find yourself with. a lot of people who want cheap. If people didn't want cheaper goods and services then neither India or China would be where they are today.

Sorry. I meant with respect to the Pure Food and Drug Act.


I want to jump in here, but nah. NOt gonna bite into this rotten apple of back patting rancid wank fest of "oh america the beautiful aren't we great but where did we go wrong?"

That's probably best. You'll probably just spew some Noam Chomsky nuthugging America has been a force of evil for a century nonsense.

What actually got me thinking about this is the reason I want Obama to be president. Unlike either McCain, or Hillary, he seems to get that being the superpower doesn't equate to leadership, and it doesn't equate to leading. And yeah, it just SUCKS just SUCKS that some of us would like to see U.S. power used in ways that benefit a lot of people, around the world, doesn't it? We DESPERATELY need an attitude change, more than anything else.

Where we went wrong was quite clear. We got a wrapped up in ourselves and self-congratulatory. Winning the Cold War should have been just the start of something more. I'm not pining for some sort of imaginary golden age or lamenting to a sad sad tune. I want things to get better, and I believe they can. It will take a lot of hard work, and a lot of not listening to negative nancies who like to extole the evils of the United States. That's defeatism at its worse. "Oh, the US just ****s everything up -why bother?"


Merry, your statement of "power is just a tool" is off kilter.


To quote Pauli "That's not right. It's not even wrong." Power is THE tool used to accomplish an end. We're done here.

Oh wait, no we're not.


If anyone thinks power is just a tool, they've never had any significant amount of it.


Like Canada? (That's really not directed in malice. I just couldn't help myself. ;) )

Rogue to answer the "space race" question - don't pick a solution, establish the goal, then start funding parallel paths of development.

[David Jamieson]

Claptrap BS.

quick to the point and not lacking in profundity.

seriously Merry, you have a lot of erroneous stuff in the first post and I think AJM was cutting to the quick as opposed to pulling it apart.

I'll give one short example.

You said:

We funded things like the space program. We helped build and sustain the UN.

yeah so what. You funded a space program. A space program that wouldn't have existed without operation paperclip and the immigration of Nazi V1-V2 scienec teams.
Operation paperclip wiped out the war crimes records of the founders of what is now NASA. This is hardly leadership, but instead is co-opting something for exploitive use.

As for the UN, you are inferring that america played a large role in the founding of it and the sustenance. Right now you have a president who has thoroughly diminished it, ridiculed it and created nothing but bad air about the institution in your country and elsewhere. Also, America has been consistent in being delinquent in paying it's fees with this organization.

I'd rip on your other stuff, but just wanted to point out the tone of it, in my view is rah rah USA and not realistic.

If you cannot approach the problem from a dead real perspective of what really is, then what is the point? You are only perpetuating a lie on which to found more lies.

[rogue]

Sorry. I meant with respect to the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Whoops, my bad.:o Too much Pepsi Max and Lou Dobbs.

[rogue]

As for the UN, you are inferring that america played a large role in the founding of it and the sustenance. Right now you have a president who has thoroughly diminished it, ridiculed it and created nothing but bad air about the institution in your country and elsewhere. Also, America has been consistent in being delinquent in paying it's fees with this organization.

Please take it, really, you can have it. Hell, we'll throw in all of the hookers from the area and teach you how to let "diplomats" and their families get away with murder in your biggest city.

FWIW, my mother in-law was a translator for the UN and my dad pulled duty at the precinct in the area. The first hand stories I've heard would make you blush.


As of 1 January 2008, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations were: the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain and the Republic of Korea.[8]

Contribution (% of total UN budget)
United States 22.00%
Japan 19.47%
Germany 8.66%
United Kingdom 6.13%
France 6.03%
Italy 4.89%
Canada 2.81%
Spain 2.52%
China 2.05%
Mexico 1.88%
Australia 1.59%
Brazil 1.52%

[David Jamieson]

Please take it, really, you can have it. Hell, we'll throw in all of the hookers from the area and teach you how to let "diplomats" and their families get away with murder in your biggest city.

FWIW, my mother in-law was a translator for the UN and my dad pulled duty at the precinct in the area. The first hand stories I've heard would make you blush.

lol.

you see my point then. While I agree reform is needed and in a constant cycle to maintain any working system, diminished stature rhetoric outbursts, ridicule and harping on peccadillo's of members is hardly the way to go about it.

In a democracy (especially an attempt at a global one), you HAVE to accept that you will not always get your way and that you can't just go ahead and do something because you disagree with what the majority of the voters say, or in this case, the security council. individuals do NOT represent the whole of the UN or what it stands for. humans are fallible, that is clear, and that is one reason why we create these institutions as opposed to letting oligarchies and thinly veiled aristocracies running the show.

as for the stats, if you look at per capitas and gnp with those percentages, you will see that America, even at 22% is just barely paying it's fair share. IE: per capita at 2+% Canada is making the same size payments and has as many boots with blue helmets on, if not more than many of the other countries above it!

Your description of the UN sounds like a paralell to congress or the senate. lol

[rogue]

It's actually worse than both Houses hopped up on viagra in a room full of congressional pages dosed with ruffies.

[Merryprankster]

As for the UN, you are inferring that america played a large role in the founding of it and the sustenance. Right now you have a president who has thoroughly diminished it, ridiculed it and created nothing but bad air about the institution in your country and elsewhere. Also, America has been consistent in being delinquent in paying it's fees with this organization.

Um, yeah, I know. That's part of the problem. I know you're not simple, but let me spell it out: NOT honoring our international obligations is part of not exercising leadership, and this president is arguably one of the biggest ****tards in human history ever to stumble his way into serious power.

Christ David - seriously? That's what you want to come up with on the space program? F-ing unbelievable. You sound like.... people in the neocon administration! Allow me to splain - they dismantled the Iraqi army and tried to forbid those who had been members of the Baath party from holding positions of power. Those are the same people who had all the expertise and capacity to perhaps help make some positive changes. But hey! They were "involved," so clearly they are all bad, evil people!

Here's the bottom line about WWII - the real criminals were put on trial or brought to justice in various other ways. But somewhere, it has to end. Below some level, you stop chasing them down. And you weigh the benefits against the cost and make those decisions. Is it easy? No. But this is the real world, where Kantian-categorical-imperative types of morality and ethical judgments simply don't work.

In real life, things are messy. And part of being human is making judgments in that messiness - some things are bright lines. But the vast majority of the decisions made are not.

As for the tone of my post, if you think that's rah-rah, then you need some comprehension lessons.

But, I do believe the United States can be a powerful force for positive change, and despite your own personal misgivings, there is much on the balance sheet that suggests I am right.

See, that's where you and I differ. You're pretty much the poor man's Noam Chomsky. If there's a problem somewhere, you're pretty certain it's the fault of the United States; AND you seem to be more interested in assigning blame or faulting motive than saying "how can we fix this?"

Nobody is suggesting all motives all the time are pure as crystal, or that there isn't significant NEGATIVE stuff on the balance. I am merely stating a few facts:

1. The US has significant power.
2. We have used that power in the past for positive change.
3. That took leadership.
4. I don't see it right now.
5. We need to start exercising leadership, and not just POWER, if we're going to reclaim the capability and ability to generate more positive change.

That's it.

Now, maybe you think that the real problem is that it's just hubristic in the extreme to exercise power. I would agree that it can be. It certainly was and is the case in Iraq - but I can build a house or break a window with a hammer. It all depends how I use it. Besides which, I'll go ahead and take the Mishnah to heart here: "It may not be yours to finish the task, but neither are you free to abstain from it." Admittedly, that refers to the study of Torah, but I think it's more widely applicable.

Rogue - I fundamentally disagree with you about the UN. The problem is that people expect far too much of it. To reiterate - the UN won't create paradise, but it can help prevent hell on earth. And I don't care that the United States has funded more of the peacekeeping efforts, etc. Our dues are overdue, and we need to pay them, because that's the responsible thing to do.

[David Jamieson]

merry, I don't even know what to say to you? YOu talk in such a glossed over candy coated dreamland way.
the "real criminals" of ww2? Where do you get this stuff? lol

YTOu think every country involved doesn't have some skeleton in their closet?

How about the US ally Stalin and his forced starvation and genocide of some 8 million Ukrainians? WW2 criminals were brought to justice? Guy, there was a smattering of nazis who were put on trial and then executed for the most part and that was that.

Real criminals in the meantime occupied offices of the highest order. You think every american is some altruistic angel or something in that war? you are wrong. You would be wrong about the allies in every instance if you positioned that only they were in the right. It is dirty and it is grey and you are mixing naive bs with facts and little ies and serving up what amounts to a load of obfuscation,

hence my point of if you are not ready to realy deal with what is there then you are setting a foundation for future lies and denial. that's it. :)

If your idea of leadership is wasting billions on endeavours that essentially don't do near as much as half the investment into public education (nasa and your military industrial complex)

If you think Bush is the only example of Poor leadership in America lately.

then again, I don't know what to say to you except that maybe you dream too much.

you want change, go make it, Go make a difference in your life and in the people around you. If more people did this, you wouldn't wind up with teh Bushes and the war criminals and the ne'er do wells running countries.

There is no eutopia. the "power structure" as it is is antiquated, foolish and will be our demise because we don't subscribe to sharing power equally. Least of all the USA.

[rogue]

Rogue - I fundamentally disagree with you about the UN. The problem is that people expect far too much of it. To reiterate - the UN won't create paradise, but it can help prevent hell on earth. And I don't care that the United States has funded more of the peacekeeping efforts, etc. Our dues are overdue, and we need to pay them, because that's the responsible thing to do.

The UN has done splendid in preventing hell on Earth for DARFOR, Srebrenica and the Congo. We expect much of it because it promises much.

[diego]

AJM!

A thoughtful riposte! Witty, incisive and arch!

Generations of thinkers and comedians bow to your mastery of the english language.:rolleyes:

you sure seem wordy lately:D

as a canadian america scares me, as an outsider I see three americas...the elite whites, the ghettoe descendants of slaves, and the working people in between. All of the institutional corruption goes back to the history of white american gangsterism to be cliche...all the gang violence and full prisons, just the whole **** drug war is blacks natives and mexicans who were created by the whites. then you have the half breeds and the immigrant workers whole just work day to day to pay the mortgage on their condo in the florida keys while they prep for the next trip to disneyland. the elite whites and their cronies have a heavy greed consciousness and the ghettoe heads are head fuct off catharsis from living with the whites...and then bush goes and tells them not to smoke weed and go to the same church the kid's grandma was abused at......

anyway these things created the la riots of 91 and after that america changed abit you got more half breed type middle american multicultural peeps they all grew up on mtv and starbucks, friends seinfeld etc. 911 hit and everyone got onsome we are the world **** for like a whole two months and bush fuciked that up:) then new orleans happenned and bush hated on black people then the prison torture pic's...i stopped watching the war once they caught saddam


****ing 911 until they caught saddam that joker george tricked me to stare at fox and cnn channel zero type bull****, ****. dude's mad gangster...

yeah america scares me...now you got blacks and browns killing each other in LA, i'm worried about the ghettoes of america.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KfVvgTAFM

[rogue]

Something I was thinking about while at the Outerbanks this weekend, does the American public want to be a world leader, does the American public want to elect a leader or just hire a manager to keep things running while they go about their business like the owners of the Outerbank beach home I rented?