In Italian and Spanish, a howl of EU protest
This is the beginning of beginning of EU's true consolidation. If the EU is to be powerful, it has to adopt a single language of government and commerce. This article shows that the parsing of languages is beginning.
I would hazard a guess that the ultimate language choices will resolve down to 2 (English and French) if Germany does not make some extraordinary political and commercial maneuvering to increase German's international relevance. Don't get me wrong: German is hugely important in Central Europe. However, the international currency of English and French is much stronger. Spanish, while important in the Western Hemisphere, is not as important in Western Europe.
Ultimately, I would be shocked if English doesn't ultimately triumph, despite howls of protest from most sectors of government and society-at-large in Europe. The idea of the EU is a counterweight to the US. Why would they want to use the same language? Truly? Because it is simplest to do so. Commerce pushes it because it is most profitable. You can communicate with the US, EU (in part), India, and most international business communities easily. The same cannot be said for Spanish, Chinese (why would they in Europe anyway?), German, or Arabic (again, why would they?).
My friends the French have seen this problem from decades away. They are fighting this tooth and nail. Until they eliminate the Academie Francaise, they are doomed to irrelevance. Sir Francis Bacon's push to increase the expressiveness of the English language is only paralleled in the Roman (Latin) experience and Chinese as dominant languages of an area or an era. Is it too late for any other result? Let's wait and see.
Friday, February 25, 2005
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
Fascinating. Bush is presuading Europe?
Fascinating. Bush is presuading Europe?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
TCS: Tech Central Station - Winning the Health Care Olympics?
TCS: Tech Central Station - Winning the Health Care Olympics?
Life expectancy is not a good measure of good healthcare? So sayeth Mr. Kling.
Life expectancy is not a good measure of good healthcare? So sayeth Mr. Kling.
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
'Rangel said Americans needed to realize "that a lot of countries may be poor, but they still have pride. And that is one thing that we completely ignore."'
Charlie, does that mean that we should call them "poor terrorists" or "prideful but poor citizens who commit terror"?
'Rangel said Americans needed to realize "that a lot of countries may be poor, but they still have pride. And that is one thing that we completely ignore."'
Charlie, does that mean that we should call them "poor terrorists" or "prideful but poor citizens who commit terror"?
Monday, February 21, 2005
Foreign Affairs - The Myth Behind China's Miracle - George J. Gilboy
Foreign Affairs - The Myth Behind China's Miracle - George J. Gilboy
I ask those that know better than I, is this true?
I ask those that know better than I, is this true?
Friday, February 11, 2005
FDR Message to Congress on Social Security
So FDR wanted private accounts? Brit Hume of Fox News, whom I respect, quoted the bold portions, too. I got this quote from the Social Security Administration's website, despite the unhinged protests of those like Bill Press.
"In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.
"I am gratified with the work of this Committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board on Economic Security drawn from various departments of the Government, the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public - spirited private citizens and a number of other advisory groups, including a committee on actuarial consultants, a medical advisory board, a dental advisory committee, a hospital advisory committee, a public - health advisory committee, a child - welfare committee and an advisory committee on employment relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major legislative proposal are ready and willing, at any time, to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate Congressional committees and members, with respect to detailed aspects.
"It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary to, and conditioned upon, the action of States. Forty - four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary State action may be taken promptly it is important that the Federal Government proceed speedily.
"The detailed report of the Committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American people. It has not attempted the impossible, nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of States, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.
"It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea - a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the world have already adopted it and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable project.
"Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to the States subject to standards established by the Federal Government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.
"At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:
"1. Unemployment compensation.
"2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.
"3. Federal aid to dependent children through grants to States for the support of existing mothers' pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.
"4. Additional Federal aid to State and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the Federal Public Health Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called "health insurance," although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the Federal Government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.
"With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform Federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory State unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all States cooperating with the Federal Government and to promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the States. The 10 percent not thus offset should be used to cover the costs of Federal and State administration of this broad system. Thus, States will largely administer unemployment compensation, assisted and guided by the Federal Government. An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the stabilization of private employment, Federal legislation should not foreclose the States from establishing means for inducing industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
"The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100,000,000.
"The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future depressions but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions, and we can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and a method of alleviation.
"We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity - and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action to attain the objectives sought in this report."
"In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.
"I am gratified with the work of this Committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board on Economic Security drawn from various departments of the Government, the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public - spirited private citizens and a number of other advisory groups, including a committee on actuarial consultants, a medical advisory board, a dental advisory committee, a hospital advisory committee, a public - health advisory committee, a child - welfare committee and an advisory committee on employment relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major legislative proposal are ready and willing, at any time, to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate Congressional committees and members, with respect to detailed aspects.
"It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary to, and conditioned upon, the action of States. Forty - four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary State action may be taken promptly it is important that the Federal Government proceed speedily.
"The detailed report of the Committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American people. It has not attempted the impossible, nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of States, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.
"It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea - a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the world have already adopted it and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable project.
"Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to the States subject to standards established by the Federal Government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.
"At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:
"1. Unemployment compensation.
"2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.
"3. Federal aid to dependent children through grants to States for the support of existing mothers' pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.
"4. Additional Federal aid to State and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the Federal Public Health Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called "health insurance," although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the Federal Government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.
"With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform Federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory State unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all States cooperating with the Federal Government and to promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the States. The 10 percent not thus offset should be used to cover the costs of Federal and State administration of this broad system. Thus, States will largely administer unemployment compensation, assisted and guided by the Federal Government. An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the stabilization of private employment, Federal legislation should not foreclose the States from establishing means for inducing industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
"The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100,000,000.
"The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future depressions but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions, and we can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and a method of alleviation.
"We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity - and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action to attain the objectives sought in this report."
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Why Do We Treat Europe So?
In looking at articles regarding Secretary Rice's visit to Europe this week and regarding our growing frustration with other countries' detrimental behavior to American interests, I ask myself, "Why do we treat Europe so? Why so well? Why so tolerant?"
The first analogy that popped into my head is the parent with a wayward child. Obviously, I thought of the US as the parent. It can't be husband and wife because no spouse would put up with such disregard for the interests of the other spouse without seeking divorce. But Europe is not a petulant child. It is far older . . . .
And then I understood a better analogy. The US is the successful college graduate with the wayward father. The father is forever having affairs with the sexy vision of the day. The father had some success in his younger years -- maybe athletics -- and has been coasting ever since. This seems a rather apt analogy. Western Europe (that is Rumsfield's Old Europe) has a special place in many Americans' hearts because Western Europe is where our families came from in just the past century or so.
We feel connected -- frustrated, but connected. We can't envision never claiming that parent, but when the wayward parent is self-destructive once again, the US shakes its head and reaches out to bail out the parent once again. We reach out in a way that we would never do for even a sibling, like Australia for instance. Luckily, Australia is more like the sibling with whom we can commiserate. Bush says to Howard, "Can you believe Dad?" Howard says, "No! You remember when he . . . . Ah, those were the days."
Our other siblings are only half-brothers and -sisters. Mexico looks more to Spain than we do. Canada looks to Europe but with a greater interest in France. These siblings don't share our understanding of Dad's wayward behavior.
Europe is forgiven so much ridiculousness because it is the Old Country. Look at our stories that we retell, whether it be personal stories about Great, Great Grandpa coming through Ellis Island in 1893 or it be fictional stories that we all share of Vito Corlione doing the same as a child and growing up on the streets of New York. The story of the Chinese coming through Angel Island, California of the same era gets little play. The Chinese don't get much historic room for error. The Indians and Pakistanis get more attention because they are like a foster sibling that was never really happy in the shared parent's home; they weren't there by birth or adoption but some governmental construct. Yet the Indians and Pakistanis are more acceptable to us than the Chinese or the Middle Eastern Muslim.
What does this analogy allow us to do? It has some predictive ability with strict limits. I have a new neighbor who is an immigrant from Egypt. He came here for many reasons, but he likes the opportunity and the religious freedom to be a Christian. He grew up Christian and a minority. Now he is in the US and feels freedom. He can be a Christian in a predominantly Christian country.
With this analogy, might we predict that it is not Arabic or Arab culture that is likely to maintain conflict with us. It is the lack of any connection. Not in religion, culture, language, government. Yet the elections in Iraq start to build the first connection: government. We have a slight connection of English as a Second Language in Iraq, but not among the Iraqi "street." The bigger roadblocks are religion and culture. Yet with government becoming more akin to us, there becomes more room for understanding and better means of forgiving differences, like we forgive perceived slights by European countries everyday. We understand the Europeans and share a history with them. In Iraq, we are beginning to see that we have something to share.
Democratic-republican government creates this opportunity to share. Share ideas. Share procedural practices. Share institutional habits, like elections and limited terms of office. Iraq is yet a newly introduced cousin who we don't fully understand, but we are beginning to feel the natural kinship.
Will we ever be as forgiving of Iraqi variations from our expectations? I doubt it will be as forgiving as we are of Europe. Some bonds of stress and strain may be developing as happens to strangers placed in a combat unit then placed on the battlefield. These bonds are very personal and very strong, but they are hard to appreciate outside the unit. We may not be as forgiving but we will have strong American voices speaking up for their Iraqi brothers-in-arms.
This will make the Iraqi relationship special in a wholly different way than we have with Europe. Even though many Americans have fallen in Europe in the 20th century, we have few non-Anglophone, battle-hardened, European brothers-in-arms. Mostly this is due to German and Soviet occupations making cooperating on the battlefield a limited opportunity.
Europe we treat well despite the personal slights. Iraq we will likely treat well because of being brothers-in-arms but never like Europe.
Any predictions for future developments with Pakistan, India, and Australia versus China? Based on the above comments, I would guess the Pakistani, Indian, and Australian relationships with the US could be good in the years to come, particularly if Pakistan can ever put together a reasonably law-abiding parliamentary system.
China? Heh. Where's the common history, government, culture, language, or religion?
Free trade will help build relationships between persons and companies and will increase English as a Second Language in China, but the easiest way to stablize the relationship is to create some commonality of the above characteristics. As ridiculous as it sounds, a change in the Chinese is government is easiest to accomplish. I doubt it will happen soon or peacefully. The Chinese Communists have learned from the errors of the Soviet Five Year Plans to decentralize economics so they are less likely to see a change of government because of economic failures.
We are turning into a four part world: the US-led democracies (North America, EU, South America, South Africa, pockets of Southeast Asia, Australia, Japan, and South Korea), the Sino-Russian block, the confused Middle East (be a republic or a caliphate?), and the schizophrenic (sub-Saharan Africa, Cuba, Venezula, Indonesia).
The Democracies will rely on their independent mind-sets not to be led by the US, but their common interests in defining peace as the lack of both actual and threatened war will make this less like herding cats and more like a town meeting. Conflicting ideas arise and are debated, but the silent majority wield the real power in their push toward less conflict.
The confused Middle East is unpredictable about where it will go as a whole, but history suggests that seeded republics tend to dominate a region's long-term goals once tried. History also suggests that the higher the concentration of republics, the more successful each will be. We have reached that concentration in the Middle East, but look at where some form of elections have been held in that region in the last several years with some form of success: Israel (obviously), Iraq, Palestine, Morocco, Nigeria (biggest problem of the bunch), Afghanistan, Ukraine, Caucasian Georgia. Look who is discussing the matter in some form (Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, another Emirate that I can't recall).
The schizophrenic will never disappear. But we can hope that they don't forever remain rooted in the same states, like Cuba has. Can the death of a leader like Castro or Chavez lead to rapid changes like in Palestine? These will likely remain the most sensitive areas for old strong-man politics. These least stable and predictable.
The last and most dangerous is the Sino-Russian block. It is not homogenous by any measure. It shares no culture, language, or religion. The structure of their governments have been similar in the past. This has some residual affinities of the brother-in-arms mentality.
Why do we treat Europe so well? Common history, government, culture, shared languages or shared language histories, shared religious descent. We can predict their behavior the best with the least risk of error in an unpredictable world. We have a vested interest in keeping that stability. Why would we not treat them well? It is a great, inviting example of how friends and allies are treated in the Democracies. That affects India, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. in how they wanted to be treated in the future.
The first analogy that popped into my head is the parent with a wayward child. Obviously, I thought of the US as the parent. It can't be husband and wife because no spouse would put up with such disregard for the interests of the other spouse without seeking divorce. But Europe is not a petulant child. It is far older . . . .
And then I understood a better analogy. The US is the successful college graduate with the wayward father. The father is forever having affairs with the sexy vision of the day. The father had some success in his younger years -- maybe athletics -- and has been coasting ever since. This seems a rather apt analogy. Western Europe (that is Rumsfield's Old Europe) has a special place in many Americans' hearts because Western Europe is where our families came from in just the past century or so.
We feel connected -- frustrated, but connected. We can't envision never claiming that parent, but when the wayward parent is self-destructive once again, the US shakes its head and reaches out to bail out the parent once again. We reach out in a way that we would never do for even a sibling, like Australia for instance. Luckily, Australia is more like the sibling with whom we can commiserate. Bush says to Howard, "Can you believe Dad?" Howard says, "No! You remember when he . . . . Ah, those were the days."
Our other siblings are only half-brothers and -sisters. Mexico looks more to Spain than we do. Canada looks to Europe but with a greater interest in France. These siblings don't share our understanding of Dad's wayward behavior.
Europe is forgiven so much ridiculousness because it is the Old Country. Look at our stories that we retell, whether it be personal stories about Great, Great Grandpa coming through Ellis Island in 1893 or it be fictional stories that we all share of Vito Corlione doing the same as a child and growing up on the streets of New York. The story of the Chinese coming through Angel Island, California of the same era gets little play. The Chinese don't get much historic room for error. The Indians and Pakistanis get more attention because they are like a foster sibling that was never really happy in the shared parent's home; they weren't there by birth or adoption but some governmental construct. Yet the Indians and Pakistanis are more acceptable to us than the Chinese or the Middle Eastern Muslim.
What does this analogy allow us to do? It has some predictive ability with strict limits. I have a new neighbor who is an immigrant from Egypt. He came here for many reasons, but he likes the opportunity and the religious freedom to be a Christian. He grew up Christian and a minority. Now he is in the US and feels freedom. He can be a Christian in a predominantly Christian country.
With this analogy, might we predict that it is not Arabic or Arab culture that is likely to maintain conflict with us. It is the lack of any connection. Not in religion, culture, language, government. Yet the elections in Iraq start to build the first connection: government. We have a slight connection of English as a Second Language in Iraq, but not among the Iraqi "street." The bigger roadblocks are religion and culture. Yet with government becoming more akin to us, there becomes more room for understanding and better means of forgiving differences, like we forgive perceived slights by European countries everyday. We understand the Europeans and share a history with them. In Iraq, we are beginning to see that we have something to share.
Democratic-republican government creates this opportunity to share. Share ideas. Share procedural practices. Share institutional habits, like elections and limited terms of office. Iraq is yet a newly introduced cousin who we don't fully understand, but we are beginning to feel the natural kinship.
Will we ever be as forgiving of Iraqi variations from our expectations? I doubt it will be as forgiving as we are of Europe. Some bonds of stress and strain may be developing as happens to strangers placed in a combat unit then placed on the battlefield. These bonds are very personal and very strong, but they are hard to appreciate outside the unit. We may not be as forgiving but we will have strong American voices speaking up for their Iraqi brothers-in-arms.
This will make the Iraqi relationship special in a wholly different way than we have with Europe. Even though many Americans have fallen in Europe in the 20th century, we have few non-Anglophone, battle-hardened, European brothers-in-arms. Mostly this is due to German and Soviet occupations making cooperating on the battlefield a limited opportunity.
Europe we treat well despite the personal slights. Iraq we will likely treat well because of being brothers-in-arms but never like Europe.
Any predictions for future developments with Pakistan, India, and Australia versus China? Based on the above comments, I would guess the Pakistani, Indian, and Australian relationships with the US could be good in the years to come, particularly if Pakistan can ever put together a reasonably law-abiding parliamentary system.
China? Heh. Where's the common history, government, culture, language, or religion?
Free trade will help build relationships between persons and companies and will increase English as a Second Language in China, but the easiest way to stablize the relationship is to create some commonality of the above characteristics. As ridiculous as it sounds, a change in the Chinese is government is easiest to accomplish. I doubt it will happen soon or peacefully. The Chinese Communists have learned from the errors of the Soviet Five Year Plans to decentralize economics so they are less likely to see a change of government because of economic failures.
We are turning into a four part world: the US-led democracies (North America, EU, South America, South Africa, pockets of Southeast Asia, Australia, Japan, and South Korea), the Sino-Russian block, the confused Middle East (be a republic or a caliphate?), and the schizophrenic (sub-Saharan Africa, Cuba, Venezula, Indonesia).
The Democracies will rely on their independent mind-sets not to be led by the US, but their common interests in defining peace as the lack of both actual and threatened war will make this less like herding cats and more like a town meeting. Conflicting ideas arise and are debated, but the silent majority wield the real power in their push toward less conflict.
The confused Middle East is unpredictable about where it will go as a whole, but history suggests that seeded republics tend to dominate a region's long-term goals once tried. History also suggests that the higher the concentration of republics, the more successful each will be. We have reached that concentration in the Middle East, but look at where some form of elections have been held in that region in the last several years with some form of success: Israel (obviously), Iraq, Palestine, Morocco, Nigeria (biggest problem of the bunch), Afghanistan, Ukraine, Caucasian Georgia. Look who is discussing the matter in some form (Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, another Emirate that I can't recall).
The schizophrenic will never disappear. But we can hope that they don't forever remain rooted in the same states, like Cuba has. Can the death of a leader like Castro or Chavez lead to rapid changes like in Palestine? These will likely remain the most sensitive areas for old strong-man politics. These least stable and predictable.
The last and most dangerous is the Sino-Russian block. It is not homogenous by any measure. It shares no culture, language, or religion. The structure of their governments have been similar in the past. This has some residual affinities of the brother-in-arms mentality.
Why do we treat Europe so well? Common history, government, culture, shared languages or shared language histories, shared religious descent. We can predict their behavior the best with the least risk of error in an unpredictable world. We have a vested interest in keeping that stability. Why would we not treat them well? It is a great, inviting example of how friends and allies are treated in the Democracies. That affects India, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. in how they wanted to be treated in the future.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Monday, February 07, 2005
National Review: LITERATURE: Writing Right - conservative literature - Brief Article
National Review: LITERATURE: Writing Right - conservative literature - Brief Article
This is a very important consideration for conservatives: why no story telling from conservatives to touch the human soul? Well maybe there is . . . .
This is a very important consideration for conservatives: why no story telling from conservatives to touch the human soul? Well maybe there is . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)