How much does it take...?

[CaptainQuark]

I'm just too enraged by the Bush Adminsitration's excesses to be able to write anything that a) would resemble a lucid, cohesive argument and b) wouldn't have the CIA and Special Branch beating down my door, arresting me (or worse) on trumped up charges of incitement to something unpatriotic and un-American!

While in no way condoning North Korea's recent nuclear tests or Iran's apparent race to develop nuclear weapons, I can't help but feel that these nations are almost justified in doing so in the face of ever-increasing US aggression on the world stage – and now even in SPACE, FFS!

And Tony Blair's meek acquiesence and collusion in these excesses are equally sickening.

Maybe I'll go back to Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is looking increasing mild and pragmatic compared with Bush. At least he only bullies and terrorises his OWN people!

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by lbj

This is not new at all. The vast majority of people have always been relatively uneducated and seemingly apathetic. I say seemingly only because they are generally more concerned over keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothing on their backs. What comes across as apathy is actually concern over more personal matters.

Nothing's really changed. The players may be different but the game is the same.

I suppose I wasn't terribly clear. I know the 'masses' have always been rather apathetic, but I meant our education system in general nowadays is very poor. For example, look at this: http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w...ghthgrade.html
Most college graduates now couldn't pass that test, let alone middle-schoolers.

Originally Posted by CaptainQuark

I'm just too enraged by the Bush Adminsitration's excesses to be able to write anything that a) would resemble a lucid, cohesive argument and b) wouldn't have the CIA and Special Branch beating down my door, arresting me (or worse) on trumped up charges of incitement to something unpatriotic and un-American!

While in no way condoning North Korea's recent nuclear tests or Iran's apparent race to develop nuclear weapons, I can't help but feel that these nations are almost justified in doing so in the face of ever-increasing US aggression on the world stage – and now even in SPACE, FFS!

And Tony Blair's meek acquiesence and collusion in these excesses are equally sickening.

Maybe I'll go back to Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is looking increasing mild and pragmatic compared with Bush. At least he only bullies and terrorises his OWN people!

I don't think it's quite that bad, yet. If the CIA bothered to track down everyone who says something unpatriotic regarding the US, I, and almost everyone I know, would have been in jail for the last four years already! Give it a few more years though...

One of the most basic problems I have with the current administration is their apparently deep-rooted belief that everyone else is inferior, the US is the best, and anyone who disagrees must be evil. It shows in their dealings with the UN ('We know best, if you're not with us then we'll do it without you',) in their stance on Iran ('well, of course they're doing it for evil purposes, what other possible reason could they have to need nuclear technology?') and even the way they view the Middle East as a whole. And that's not even mentioning Israel and how we're always willing to beat up everyone else for them. Go to some Arabian news site some time and read the comments there. The muslims in the middle east hate us. A lot. And there's no possible way the US can win this 'war' against them, because we haven't learned from history. Empires (and make no mistake, the US is turning into one) always fall. The only surprising thing here is that it has taken this long to begin. That is because until the last 50 years, we were fairly well-liked, and actually seen as a good ally to have. Now we're a liability; any government which dares to support us is quickly removed.

As to Tony Blair, I see that he has only one advantage over Bush: he actually is able to speak in public without appearing to be a complete moron. I hope he's replaced by some viciously anti-US progressive candidate who can completely sever relations with the US, just after I get into the country. After all, what's the use in leaving the 'big evil' just to run into its little brother!

[Esquilinho]

I just have to say that the first article sounds terribly familiar... ah, I know! It's just like Portugal before the revoltuion of 1974!

For those who don't know, until then, Portugal was under a fascist dictatorship and there was a political police that acted just like described in the article.

BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!

[fryke]

Well: The "constitution" should very _well_ be still viable after a couple hundred years in a modern democratic state. Sure, some things change, but that's what a constitution is all about: *NOT* to be changed by whichever short wind is blowing...

[lbj]

Originally Posted by Esquilinho

BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!

I'm having a hard time deciding if you are being satirical or not.

The Constitution is NOT the current problem with this country . . .

[dlloyd]

I think the Constitution is basically timeless. Sure, there have been amendments, but in general those seem to be more in the form of clarification and augmentation than outright change.

[eric2006]

Originally Posted by Esquilinho

BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!

The constitution is a very dynamic document. It allows for change, yet sets the foundation for a balanced government (in theory). Plus, I think most of us would agree that we would not want the current administration re-writing the constitution.

[Rhisiart]

Coming at this issue from a slightly different angle, isn't this all about proportionality?

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin killed an awful lot of people, up to one billion collectively depending on your historical sources.

Saddam only managed 3,000,000 and Bush & Blair have managed a meagre 650,000 in Iraq to date, albeit with the generous help of some Arab desperados.

Yet, it all boils down to an ambition of some sort. Hitler wanted a technically advanced New World Order (populated exclusively by Causcasians).

Stalin wanted something similar, but with a stronger Slavic flavour.

Bush wants massive pay outs for WASPs at all costs, and Blair wants to be seen as a Churchillian giant (no hope buddy).

So what is the choice? Two really serious total feckin' psychos (Hitler & Stalin) or two hopelessly deluded dimbats (Bush & Blair)?

Fryke; any alternatives?