[thunderous_funker]

The US empire will fall, but not the nation.

That is to say that our military bases in 135+ countries will eventually be forced out, closed or abandoned. Our military domination of the vast swaths of the globe will greatly diminish.

That will happen, but the nation at home will remain even if we have a few more social upheavals before us.

I expect the next social/political revolution will be similar to the progressive movement around the turn of the century and following the depression. Eventually, the total corruption of our political system by corporate interests and the massive wealth disparity will drive the majority to force our government into a more responsive position.

There might be some riots. There will certainly be massive demonstrations. But luckily, like most modern societies, it won't come to civil war.

Let's not forget that even the "evil empire" was felled by unarmed citizens and not a violent coup. When enough Americans get mad enough about how bad things are getting, the same will happen here.

Of course, the longer we go down the road of Brazilification (total corruption, massive wealth disparity, social breakdown) the more violent the re-adjustment will need to be. I'm hoping for sooner rather than later.

[SimeyTheLimey]

O-kay. So far we have had the Buchananite "liberals are destroying the country, Conservatives must take to the hills". Now we have the Naderite "corporations run the country, we must take to the streets and man the barricades" side.

Notice what they have in common? Deep, deep, pessimism and a feeling of helplessness when things don't go their way. Sad really.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here, I think the core of what it is to be an American was the same before and after the Civil War. And in fact, I think that is reflected in the historical record. Both north and south saw themselves as protecting their rights as Americans.

Well, I would say the South was protecting their rights as individual states while the North was defending the ideal of Federalism.

One day we will agree on something, Simey.

HOw about this one...The Brickcellar in Dupont...greatest selection of beers I have ever seen. (There is something similar in Alexandria too, isn't there?)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:

One day we will agree on something, Simey.

HOw about this one...The Brickcellar in Dupont...greatest selection of beers I have ever seen. (There is something similar in Alexandria too, isn't there?)

Are you asking me out on a date?

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
O-kay. So far we have had the Buchananite "liberals are destroying the country, Conservatives must take to the hills". Now we have the Naderite "corporations run the country, we must take to the streets and man the barricades" side.

Notice what they have in common? Deep, deep, pessimism and a feeling of helplessness when things don't go their way. Sad really.

So, so well put. Some people around here need to read more mainstream academic works, in addition to whatever 'non-mainstream' (for lack of a germane term) writers out there.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Well, I would say the South was protecting their rights as individual states while the North was defending the ideal of Federalism.

Sure that works. But you have to specify that the South was protect their rights as individual states, to deny the humanity and rights of a certain group of people. And that the North was defending the ideal of Federalism that all people should be free and equal.

Yes, there were other issues. But what it came down to was that the South thought their way of life was more important than the rights of a certain group of people and preferred to keep those people bonded into slavery rather than deal with a little hardship.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is your problem change, or democracy?

That is not a fair question. We all look at issues and put our own version of weight on them. Yeah, we got into it about gay marriages...but I don't put as much weight on that as I put on the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc. When people begin to mess with what is important to my ideology, I don't like it and I am a proponent to defend my convictions by any means necessary.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Well, I would say the South was protecting their rights as individual states while the North was defending the ideal of Federalism.

One day we will agree on something, Simey.

HOw about this one...The Brickcellar in Dupont...greatest selection of beers I have ever seen. (There is something similar in Alexandria too, isn't there?)

Where is this place? I love the Brickcellar (sp?)!!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Where is this place? I love the Brickcellar (sp?)!!!

The Brickskeller is on 22nd street around the corner from P. It has a good selection, but they overchill their dark beers and its expensive.

dcolton: I agree with you on the First and Second Amendments and given that we have that in common, maybe you can understand a little of the depth of my anger at the idea of writing me out of the constitution. I feel about that the way I imagine you would feel if the ATF started confiscating everyone's guns. And when you say that marriage isn't a right I feel about that the same way you probably do when people argue (wrongly, in my view) that there is no right to bear arms.

[dcolton]

I think it is in old town, right across the bridge. It's been a while since I lived in DC so I can't remember.

And Simey, no date. But the next time I'm in DC, I'll let you buy me a beer.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Brickskeller is on 22nd street around the corner from P. It has a good selection, but they overchill their dark beers and its expensive.

dcolton: I agree with you on the First and Second Amendments and given that we have that in common, maybe you can understand a little of the depth of my anger at the idea of writing me out of the constitution. I feel about that the way I imagine you would feel if the ATF started confiscating everyone's guns. And when you say that marriage isn't a right I feel about that the same way you probably do when people argue (wrongly, in my view) that there is no right to bear arms.

I understand the anger, but we disagree on some fundamental issues when it comes to gay marriages. Thats all I can say to that. But if you feel that it is an abridgment of your rights, don't you want to do everything in your power to gain those rights?

(I think nos was asking about the place in Alexandria)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
O-kay. So far we have had the Buchananite "liberals are destroying the country, Conservatives must take to the hills". Now we have the Naderite "corporations run the country, we must take to the streets and man the barricades" side.

Notice what they have in common? Deep, deep, pessimism and a feeling of helplessness when things don't go their way. Sad really.

On the contrary, I have eternal optomism that Americans will never let our country turn into Brazil--or least won't let it stay that way for long.

I believe quite strongly that put to the test, they will rise up and demand that government change to reflect the needs of the people.

If you don't think corporate interests are buying and selling US policy at will, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I anticipate a rather big clash over the issue in the next 10-15 years. Right now everyone is too focused on God, gays, guns and race but eventually people will see how badly they are being robbed by both the "right" and the "left".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I understand the anger, but we disagree on some fundamental issues when it comes to gay marriages. Thats all I can say to that. But if you feel that it is an abridgment of your rights, don't you want to do everything in your power to gain those rights?

(I think nos was asking about the place in Alexandria)

Yes, up to a point. However, I haven't given up on "working the system." The reason that amending the constitution is such an affront is because its an attempt to once and for all end a political debate. That's why it is such a misuse of majority power. However, I think the marriage amendment is already losing steam. Whether its defeat will result in the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction, or whether there is some compromise in the middle, is very much up in the air. But then again, so is the rest of the issue.

I didn't know that there is a Brickskeller in Old Town. I don't often go out for a beer these days. That's another thing where gay and straight couples are alike. Once you settle down, you settle down.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
On the contrary, I have eternal optomism that Americans will never let our country turn into Brazil--or least won't let it stay that way for long.

True. Americans would never let the country turn into Brazil. Which is why your analysis is so off base.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, up to a point. However, I haven't given up on "working the system." The reason that amending the constitution is such an affront is because its an attempt to once and for all end a political debate. That's why it is such a misuse of majority power. However, I think the marriage amendment is already losing steam. Whether its defeat will result in the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction, or whether there is some compromise in the middle, is very much up in the air. But then again, so is the rest of the issue.

I didn't know that there is a Brickskeller in Old Town. I don't often go out for a beer these days. That's another thing where gay and straight couples are alike. Once you settle down, you settle down.

But this is my issue, and it is a little off topic. If you believe your right to marry is a fundmanetal right that is being abridged, why would you accept something like a civil union? Think about it, those who want to offer you a civil union are far more dangerous than people like me. You know what my stand is. What is there stand? Are they trying to appease you, do they think less of you to only allow something called "Civil Unions"?

NonHuman,
Yes, we could argue over the cause of the civil war, but ultimately it was about states rights and how far the federal government can go.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
But this is my issue, and it is a little off topic. If you believe your right to marry is a fundmanetal right that is being abridged, why would you accept something like a civil union? Think about it, those who want to offer you a civil union are far more dangerous than people like me. You know what my stand is. What is there stand? Are they trying to appease you, do they think less of you to only allow something called "Civil Unions"?

I don't like civil unions. But above all else, I don't like being written out of the constitution. That's what I regard as dangerous. At least as things stand, I can argue my case. If you amend the constitution, that right is effectively nullified. That's a far bigger infringement of my rights as an American than the issue of marriage.

If we get separate but equal status, I would still push for full equality while at the same time marvelling over what we have achieved. Being a conservative, I am not afraid to take a long view and to compromise. I don't want to "win" this the way pro-choicers "won" on the abortion issue. I would be much more comfortable with persuasion than that kind of sledge hammer approach. All I ask in return is the right to debate the issue under the constitution as it is presently written.

[theolein]

dcolton: for at least introducing some interesting debate into the pol lounge.

I think that it's obvious that all empire fall eventually, just as you say. Nothing's for ever. However, I think that while the US is a certain kind of empire, much as the British empire was, the US "Empire" is more an economic one backed by a strong military force. The US doesn't go about colonising other nations, and no I don't think the war in Iraq can be described as colonisation. It is the kind of war an Empire would mount, but it amounts to what the British used to call punitive expiditions.

The thing is also that the US is quite popular in large parts of the world, at least culturally, even if not many will admit it. I'm typing this on an American deisgned and sold computer that was built in Taiwan, using an OS that comes from the US. About 80% of the movies on TV are American Hollywood slop.

I suppose one could equate the American cultural empire as being in some ways reminiscent of the British mannerisms and bureaucracy that was left behind as its empire fell, or the latin language and law that the Romans left behind.

So perhaps it is an empire.

But predicting in what way it would fall is a bit difficult I would think. At the moment, gievn the very real financial dangers in the US ->Job Outsourcing to India, Cheap Asian imports and a huge financial deficit, one would perhaps be liekly to say it would be due to economics if the US collapsed. But I'm old enough to remember the 80's and 70's when the US was in huge internal disarray, the great lakes were so polluted that they sometimes burned (Yeah, fu�kers, I'm a tree lover) and everyone thought the Japanese would rule the world. Under Clinton, and I'm not saying because of him, just during his "reign", the US rebounded impressively and Japan almost collapsed. I think that the US can, with a less economically incompetent president, probably rebound financially.

The only thing that I see as being a real danger, internally, is the large amount of politcial polarisation going on in the states, with BOTH the democrats and the republicans being more and more rabid in their attacks on one another. Look at the hatred that comes forth on this board as an example. And neither "side" seems to want to give an inch. It is very far, however, from outright armed resitance, and even there, the US has been through there before with the Waco thing. I'm sure that a lot of retarded right wing christian loonies, like Zimphire, still blame all the worlds evils on Clinton, just as I am sure that the far left blames all the problems on Bush.

If John Kerry wins the election, then maybe we'll see some right wing splitter groups doing some crazy stuff again, but I think that 99% are not in favour of some weird violence. That would only change if too much legislation like the Patriot act were to be introduced and enforced. But I see the huge opposition amongst most Americans, apart, again from the Blinded By Bush crowd, to John Ashcroft and his moronic craziness that I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Externally, the biggest threat to the US is probably China. China has changed radically in the last two decades, with all communist era policies practically gone, apart from the one-party state, and even that is showing signs of liberalising. However it will be many decades before China would be in a position to challenge the US militarily as the USSR did. That it can happen, and much quicker than one thought is shown by Nazi Germany, that went from an unarmed and humiliated country in 1933, to having the world's largest and most powerful army in about 7 years.

AS for all the paranoia of terrorists exploding a nuclear device in the west somewhere, I am not so sure. I am pretty sure that the crazies know that doing such a thing would mean war automatically, and a big one too. Not that things like that will ot happen, but they would be cutting their own throats if they did that, and they know it. Bush was successful, at least as opposed to Clinton's rocketing of Afghan Al Qaida camps, in showing that actions like that would be met with war.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
True. Americans would never let the country turn into Brazil. Which is why your analysis is so off base.

Depends on which Americans you're talking about.

I was talking about the nation as an organic whole. There are certainly elements of our society that would gladly welcome a society where all the "good people" live behind walls and all the undesirables are somewhere else out of sight and mind. Who would welcome the massive privatization of the commons for the advantage of the few even at the detriment of the many.

I'd even say that we are already headed down that path.

But I do believe that as the corrupt and unscrupulous pirates try to accelerate such a transformation, the general population would fight and resist it--even violently if necessary.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Sarcasm?

Absolutely ... prior post edited for clarity

[dcolton]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Depends on which Americans you're talking about.

I was talking about the nation as an organic whole. There are certainly elements of our society that would gladly welcome a society where all the "good people" live behind walls and all the undesirables are somewhere else out of sight and mind. Who would welcome the massive privatization of the commons for the advantage of the few even at the detriment of the many.

I'd even say that we are already headed down that path.

But I do believe that as the corrupt and unscrupulous pirates try to accelerate such a transformation, the general population would fight and resist it--even violently if necessary.

Exactly, If you combine a diverse set of ideals, economic devastation, acts of war, and a some corruption - you have the potential for revolution. Especially if it comes down to protecting your assets, or better yet, your family

[theolein]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
On the contrary, I have eternal optomism that Americans will never let our country turn into Brazil--or least won't let it stay that way for long.

...

You know, for someone who is supposed to be so liberal, you made a pretty dumb comment just there, and it reminds me of what dcolton said when he was talking about blacks/whites in the "marking of Arabs" thread: It seems to me to be quite an elitist, arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

Brazil is no picnic, but it is showing signs of making a very good recovery after the bungling of exactly those type of vested interest politicians you were always talking about finally lost to Lula and his crew. They seem to have made at least some headway in fighting some of Brazil's biggest problems, such as poverty crime and corruption, and destruction of the Amazon environment and they have done pretty good work in starting to clean up some of the worst favelas in the country. I like the fact that Brazil had the guts to start things like public internet cafes based on cheap linux terminals and introduce free books in the metro system in Sao Paulo.

Part of the original problem in Brazil is that the old elite was far too self interested to ever take any courageous steps against abuse of the country by richer western nations. Finally, they took the step of reciprocating when Brazilians got photgraphed and fingerprinted on entering the US by doing likewise. They are stopping to see themselves as victims and as South American "niggers" as they were often treated in the west and are taking their destiny in their own hands.

To the Brazilians I say

[dcolton]

Originally posted by theolein:
You know, for someone who is supposed to be so liberal, you made a pretty dumb comment just there, and it reminds me of what dcolton said when he was talking about blacks/whites in the "marking of Arabs" thread: It seems to me to be quite an elitist, arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

Brazil is no picnic, but it is showing signs of making a very good recovery after the bungling of exactly those type of vested interest politicians you were always talking about finally lost to Lula and his crew. They seem to have made at least some headway in fighting some of Brazil's biggest problems, such as poverty crime and corruption, and destruction of the Amazon environment and they have done pretty good work in starting to clean up some of the worst favelas in the country. I like the fact that Brazil had the guts to start things like public internet cafes based on cheap linux terminals and introduce free books in the metro system in Sao Paulo.

Part of the original problem in Brazil is that the old elite was far too self interested to ever take any courageous steps against abuse of the country by richer western nations. Finally, they took the step of reciprocating when Brazilians got photgraphed and fingerprinted on entering the US by doing likewise. They are stopping to see themselves as victims and as South American "niggers" as they were often treated in the west and are taking their destiny in their own hands.

To the Brazilians I say

What did I say? Refresh my memory. Was it that I hate the way you liberals always want to bring race into a discussion, no matter what the topic?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by theolein:
You know, for someone who is supposed to be so liberal, you made a pretty dumb comment just there, and it reminds me of what dcolton said when he was talking about blacks/whites in the "marking of Arabs" thread: It seems to me to be quite an elitist, arrogant and ignorant thing to say.

Brazil is no picnic, but it is showing signs of making a very good recovery after the bungling of exactly those type of vested interest politicians you were always talking about finally lost to Lula and his crew. They seem to have made at least some headway in fighting some of Brazil's biggest problems, such as poverty crime and corruption, and destruction of the Amazon environment and they have done pretty good work in starting to clean up some of the worst favelas in the country. I like the fact that Brazil had the guts to start things like public internet cafes based on cheap linux terminals and introduce free books in the metro system in Sao Paulo.

Part of the original problem in Brazil is that the old elite was far too self interested to ever take any courageous steps against abuse of the country by richer western nations. Finally, they took the step of reciprocating when Brazilians got photgraphed and fingerprinted on entering the US by doing likewise. They are stopping to see themselves as victims and as South American "niggers" as they were often treated in the west and are taking their destiny in their own hands.

To the Brazilians I say

I'm elitist, ignorant and arrogant to point out the massive social problems Brazil has suffered over the years?? The very problems you now lecture me that are being finally addressed?

Sheesh.

All I said it that the kinds of corruption and social stratification that happened in Brazil (and yes, it happened) would spark revolution in American--hopefully before it got that far.

[theolein]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What did I say? Refresh my memory. Was it that I hate the way you liberals always want to bring race into a discussion, no matter what the topic?

I said that blacks are as dumb as bricks.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by theolein:
I said that blacks are as dumb as bricks.

Maybe I should report you. Nah...I'll get over it.

[theolein]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm elitist, ignorant and arrogant to point out the massive social problems Brazil has suffered over the years?? The very problems you now lecture me that are being finally addressed?

Sheesh.

All I said it that the kinds of corruption and social stratification that happened in Brazil (and yes, it happened) would spark revolution in American--hopefully before it got that far.

Was there ever a time in Brazil's history that there wasn't social stratification and endemic corruption? No, I didn't think so. Brazil has a similar early history to the US in that European colonists imported masses of african slaves for cheap labour. The only thing is that there was never a civil war in Brazil, and don't tell me that the Civil war in the US was fought because of slavery primarily, because it wasn't.

Brazil never knew any other kind of system. It didn't "get" that way. It's the way it started off. This is the first real attempt to change things, and yes, it pisses me off that you so off handedly just throw a comment around like that.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by theolein:
This is the first real attempt to change things, and yes, it pisses me off that you so off handedly just throw a comment around like that.

What comment? I'm really confused at exactly what it is you've taken offense at.

If its because I said "Brazilification" as crude shorthand for the problems, then I apologize. It wasn't intended as racial, social or even historical commentary on the people of Brazil. It was merely crude shorthand for the kinds of extreme social issues I was talking about.

[theolein]

Originally posted by dcolton:


Maybe I should report you. Nah...I'll get over it.

If you want to report me then go ahead, by all means. I could care less. BUT....

There's a reason there's a smiley with a wink there. Firstly, I thought that if you felt so free as to make pretty cheap passing comments about Lerkfish's best friend being his hand and wiping his a$$ and all, in the interests of shocking him into attention, then I thought you would be both man enough and wise enough to take some of your own medicine, especially when you feel free enough to make a cheap comment about me being one of "you liberals". You label me, I label you.

And no, it wasn't about race always being brought into the discussion. It was my agreeing with you that many liberals are closet racists when it comes down to it.

Don't you conservatives ever READ the fu�king posts?

[John F. Smith]

I think America is just RIPE for revolution in 10-15 years.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by theolein:
If you want to report me then go ahead, by all means. I could care less. BUT....

There's a reason there's a smiley with a wink there. Firstly, I thought that if you felt so free as to make pretty cheap passing comments about Lerkfish's best friend being his hand and wiping his a$$ and all, in the interests of shocking him into attention, then I thought you would be both man enough and wise enough to take some of your own medicine, especially when you feel free enough to make a cheap comment about me being one of "you liberals". You label me, I label you.

And no, it wasn't about race always being brought into the discussion. It was my agreeing with you that many liberals are closet racists when it comes down to it.

Don't you conservatives ever READ the fu�king posts?

I was kidding theo! I laughed at your ccomment. You can't really hurt my feeling, I barely have one as it is.


Back to topic:

You calim China is the biggest threat. What about N. Korea? Yeah, you couls say that China could get involved, but I think it would be more of a support and arms involvement rather than actual military action/

[quandarry]

It is something that has already started and no one will be able to stop American decline. The U.S. has become a debtor nation which means it depends on other nations to do it's thing like fighting other countries. American tax payers cannot support the bloat. Jobs are evaporating, the rich are getting richer, the middle class is becoming the lower class.

As long as the nations that prop up the United States for whatever reasons see the time to bail out they will in a New York minute. The downward spiral will speed to blistering speed. Like someone else said bases will close, the dollar will be worth about what the paper is worth that it's printed on (the world has long ago gone to the euro for it's hard currency needs), other nations will forget what friends they once were and give little help, the U.S. will close-up into itself. Some areas may prosper, others not so well...what that will lead to is anyones guess.

Other countries will be sucked into the quagmire. Canada, the Americans largest trading partner will sink like a rock and probably finally break apart like it's been trying to do since it first joined together. Mexico, well it will be Mexico and the border will be overrun by the el norte migration and no-one to stop it (an invasion, migration of people not seen in modern history).

There will be social upheaval and riots as the have-nots have even less, people will die. things will seem to be at their worst and then get even more so...

Out of all this will come a rebirth in North America. Regions with similar ideals will unite and from this new smaller nations or areas of self government (eg. Northern Calif., Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Alberta, Alaska...) which will be able to function better than one large behemoth.

ok, maybe this...

America will sink from the weight of all the fat people.

[theolein]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I was kidding theo! I laughed at your ccomment. You can't really hurt my feeling, I barely have one as it is.


Back to topic:

You calim China is the biggest threat. What about N. Korea? Yeah, you couls say that China could get involved, but I think it would be more of a support and arms involvement rather than actual military action/

Uhm, China is getting more wealthy all the time. It is liberalising itself at the same time and becoming militarily stronger and more advanced as well. On top of all this, China is huge. Those 1 billion hard working industrious people have a hell of a lot of potential, is basically what I'm thinking. If the US ever gets involved in a war with NKorea then it'll probably be a bad one, but the US is so hugely superior to NK in military terms that it wouldn't be much of a contest after the initial period was over.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Au contraire. It scales very well. In 1789, the United States consisted of about four million people (including many with no, or next to no voting rights) scattered up and down the Atlantic seaboard in 13 states. Now it is over 290 million, in 50 states stretching out as far as Alaska and Hawaii. Moreover, the franchise has been extended to women, racial minorities, non-property owners, and 18-20 year olds.

We've also acquired a fourth branch of government in the administrative state that the Framers wouldn't have recognized at all, and vastly increased the scope of the federal government. In fact, many would argue that our government scales too well.

We still only have a small percent of our population registered to vote. An even smaller portion voting. 290 million is a bit high for the voting public.

Then when you take into the account that back in 1800 it didn't take years for congress to make a decision on the economy, or any other large scale issue.

We don't scale very well. Our justice system is so bloated, most states actually urge cases to be settled in arbitration. 100 years ago, the idea of urging ppl to settle out of a courtroom what could be settled in court was unthinkable. No good American would let an arbitrator do what a good American court is supposed to do.

But now, that's the most efficient way to do it. The justice department is to bloated to deal with actual justice.

Our laws are outdated, and becoming even more so.

Takes progressively longer to pass/change laws than ever before. And even when they pass, it can be a decade or more before people are done with the legal matters to block/change the law again.


Far from efficient. It's getting worse at an exponential rate. Give it another 100 years, and it will take 500 years to raise the fines for drunk driving.

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
The day that debates over issues like civil rights end is the day America falls.

By definition of "America"... your technically right.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nothing is forever. How do you think the United States will eventually fall? Do you think it will be through war or revolution (political, civil war, etc.) and when do you think it will occur.

The fall of the U.S., if it happens, will also be the fall of the Industrialized world.

There was once a documentary about cannibalism I saw on television.

The commentator said, at the end, that we are only one cultural step away, as a civilization, to get back to this type of behaviour.

I like the optimism in this thread. I also appreciated very much the comments of scientist and thunderous_funker as of the others.

"Rien ne se perd, rien ne se cr��, tout n'est que processus" -Lavoisier

(Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is process)

Obviously, nobody expected Germany to turn to Nazism. Today, no one would believe in the return of the KKK, or of measures to refrain women to vote in the U.S. All these measures to create these situations or change them we're made from decisions by very intelligent men and women. Who's to say they will not turn around at some point in the future?

The instruments to control the rights of people in the Industrialized world are here. And I believe Freedom is threatened.

At the beginning of the previous century, some Law was passed to allow Black people to go in court to retrieve some of their rights to be recognized as persons. Some lawyers at that time took used that Law and managed to have it interpreted in such a way that corporations would be recognized as "persons" in the legal sense of the word.

The documentary "The Corporation" (which I strongly suggest for your viewing) describes some of the basic institutions (corporations) as having a greater influence in our lives than we suspect.

150 years ago a corporation was merely an organized way of doing business. Today it is a global power that uses its status as a "person" to claim rights under the constitution.
(...)
Self-interested, amoral, callous and deceitful, a corporation�s operational principles make it anti-social. It breaches social and legal standards to get its way even while it mimics the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. It suffers no guilt. Diagnosis: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a psychopath.

People can shield themselves by using the cover of a corporation, a legal person in its own right.

Doing so, the people behind the corporation can possibly act without much accountability. They will defend themselves with all the legal means possible (they have a lot of money to do so), and are much more capable to create "easy" exits to freedom. Any financial repercussions are accounted as unexpected expenditures for the corporation, so it does not always have the effect of a punishment...

The greater collusion between political parties and corporations is definitely threatening democracy as well (Unions are contributions in most political parties is decreasing, since they have turned in corporations themselves-or their equivalent-) and this is true everywhere on the world.

I believe there is danger for the industrialized world. I believe the U.S.A. are one of the most important engines of civilization culturally, economically and politically; one of the lights of civilization that make the future hopeful and bearable for all inhabitants of this planet. It is not the only one, of course, but one of the most important.

There is hope, certainly. Human Rights, the American Constitution, and many other factors like the thirst for justice and equality (which Thunderous_funker mentioned) are the elements that can make things get better.

But greed, selfishness and exploitation of resources and people for the sole purpose of satisfying comfort needs that are superfluous and not based on reasoned analysis will make the process slower and interfere greatly with our access to some planetary heaven for the human race.

This is all imho, of course.

I wish America, not luck, but success in working with everybody else and hope everybody else will learn to work hand in hand for this harmony I sincerely believe we all long for.

Thank you for reading me.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by theolein:

About 80% of the movies on TV are American Hollywood slop.

I think i should correct you on this. Much of the slop you speak of only seems American. Many movies are filmed in Canada with actors you only think are American or maybe Romania (Cold Mountain) with Australian actors. Non-American investors are the biggies. Canada has the made for TV movie market all locked up. Yes they are bad.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What comment? I'm really confused at exactly what it is you've taken offense at.

If its because I said "Brazilification" as crude shorthand for the problems, then I apologize. It wasn't intended as racial, social or even historical commentary on the people of Brazil. It was merely crude shorthand for the kinds of extreme social issues I was talking about.

Heh - I immediately assumed you meant "become Brazil" as in the police state depicted in the Terry Gilliam film of the same name. Oh well...

[angaq0k]

In the meantime, while we theorize on the future of America, the world is crumbling down in misery.

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montr...E-E1AC7326C0AC

How ironic that comfort can make us so indifferent sometimes...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Heh - I immediately assumed you meant "become Brazil" as in the police state depicted in the Terry Gilliam film of the same name. Oh well...

Hmm, that wouldn't be a bad anology either.

[f1000]

Those predicting the demise of the United States will have to wait for a very long time:

1. America's population continues to increase at a faster rate than that of its peer competitors (E.U., Japan, China). Russia's population continues to decline. According to some estimates, the U.S. will be up to SIX TIMES more populous than Russia by 2050.

2. With the most habitable territory on Earth, the U.S. can ultimately contain more people than any other nation. It already posseses over 4.5% of the world's population (about 1:22). If, as the U.N. predicts, the world's population stabilizes at 9 billion and the U.S. achieves half of India's current population density, this percentage could go as high as 17% (1:6). So much for the completely baseless 1:100 not being able to rule the world forever argument.

3. America's already high GDP per capita continues to go higher despite a huge and growing population. Even if China's PPP-adjusted GDP were to catch up to America's in the next two decades, less of it would be available for innovation/militarism simply due to the need to feed and maintain a much larger population. A growing and demographically youthful America will eventually retake the GDP lead from a shrinking and aging China.

4. America's attractive lifestyle and pro-immigration policies ensure that it can select from the cream (youngest, richest, brightest, hardest working) of the world's teeming masses. India's IIT, for example, loses many of its top students to Silicon Valley. Ditto for Russians, Chinese, and many other potential "enemy" countries.

5. High mobility and instant telecommunications have suppressed regionalism in the U.S., and thus reduced the possibility of another Civil War. Russia (Chechnya), India (Kashmir), and China (Tibet/Xinxiang/Taiwan) on the other hand continue to experience resource-sapping internal conflicts.

6. The U.S. is bordered by non-threatening entities (Canada, Mexico, and two oceans) that do not tie-down its military. This is not true for most other countries: Russia-China, Pakistan-India, North-South Koreas, Iran-Iraq.

7. America spends more on defense than the next 21 countries combined. What's worse, most of those countries are America's allies. Together, America and her close allies account for almost 2/3 of the world's military spending; nevertheless, America still spends a smaller percentage of its GDP on defense than Russia does (arguably, the country with the world's 2nd most powerful military).

8. If the U.S. were to default on its loans today, there is very little that the rest of the world could do to get their money back. Admittedly, this is a terrible scenario, but all those harping on America's national debt need to realize that much of this money has been used to arm the country to the teeth. It is laughable to think that any lender country could ever come to our shores to reposses territory (over me and my M1A1 Abrahms' dead bodies); any repayment schedule is going to be made on America's terms. In any case, as the richest nation on earth, the U.S. has the collateral to easily back up these loans, however enormous they might be (the international bond buyers aren't fools).

9. It is unlikely that China can maintain its high growth rate without disruptions. South America and the Far East are both littered with the remnants of once high-flying capitalist economies (Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia, Indonesia, even Japan). Corruption has usually been the culprit, and corruption thrives in one-party Red China. By contrast, the U.S. is one of the world's least corrupt countries.

10. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. is mostly self-sufficient in terms of natural resources (especially food). Japan, by contrast, imports over 50% of its food.

11. Despite all the media hype over inner city violence, gangs, crimes, etc, America's overall lifespan keeps increasing. Its violent crime rates have actually decreased. We must be doing something right.

12. Any calamity that might fell the United States (war, pestilence, climate change, comet, aliens) is likely going to destroy the rest of the world, too.

[Spliffdaddy]

yay.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by f1000:

2. With the most habitable territory on Earth, the U.S. can ultimately contain more people than any other nation. It is already over 4.5% of world population (about 1:22). If the world's population stabilizes at 9 billion and the U.S. achieves half of India's current population density, this percentage could go as high as 17% (1:6). So much for the 1:100 not being able to rule the world forever argument.

You forget that the Average American home sits on enough land to feed an average american home.

As communities grow, so does the land usage, and farms are sold. No better example than NJ. Once the "garden state", areas that once had nothing but farms for 20 miles don't have a farm 50+ miles. Most farms in my area for example are sold, or for sale. All for building new townhomes or single family homes.

That's all food to feed ppl being lost.

Right now, we produce a surplus (though nobody outside the US wants it due to all the chemicals and engineering linked to cancer among other disesases)... as we grow, and reduce our food supply, we become more dependant.

So no, we could never achieve that... because the rest of the world is doing the same.

before we are even 50% of the way there, there are many regions that would have overextended it's sanitation system, and caused widespread disease.

Thanks to being a "global village", that disease problem will have no issues coming over either pond that isolate us from them.


So no, we could never achieve anywhere near that. The environment just won't allow it. Technology is great, but it's still a glass ceiling. You can see forever, but there is a physical limit.


Some say several US cities are extending their sanitation, including NYC and LA. You could debate the legitimacy of this.

What you can't debate is the fact that you need land to live on, and land to grow on.


And appartment buildings don't solve the problem. They still produce waste and consume (electricity usage, sewage, furnishings, building materials themselves, food, medication, etc.).

There's infinate resources available, and exponential growth of consumption.

Eventually you exceed the boundries. Trade was the last big inovation to overcome this problem. Europe had it during the middle ages. Overextended it's sanitation... result: Plague. It solved health problems in part by new crops from overseas (oranges from americas for example), as well as spreading it's population over colonies.

Look to mars.

[PerryP2]

1. half a century ago the US produced more than half of the manufactured goods in the world. now, sweatshop labour, mainly in china, produces nearly everything. even the flags that patriotic americans wave are made in china.

2. americas industrial base is shrinking rapidly - it's now equal to japans (consider the differences in geographic size)

3. americans have become lazy, degenerate and obese. they consume but hardly produce, and if china stops exporting to america then the US is fvcked.

4. the rest of the world is advancing, the US is stalled. the EU and SE Asia are almost self-sufficient, a far cry from the US's massive deficits and weak dollar.

5. since Bush came to power, the creative and professional classes no longer view the US as a viable destination.

6. all that the US has left is military power, which it uses to attack insignificant, virtually defenceless third-world countries. like the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, its symptomatic of an empire on its last legs.

7. it's military partners are no longer so willing to let the US use them as military bases

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by PerryP2:
1. half a century ago the US produced more than half of the manufactured goods in the world. now, sweatshop labour, mainly in china, produces nearly everything. even the flags that patriotic americans wave are made in china.

2. americas industrial base is shrinking rapidly - it's now equal to japans (consider the differences in geographic size)

3. americans have become lazy, degenerate and obese. they consume but hardly produce, and if china stops exporting to america then the US is fvcked.

4. the rest of the world is advancing, the US is stalled. the EU and SE Asia are almost self-sufficient, a far cry from the US's massive deficits and weak dollar.

5. since Bush came to power, the creative and professional classes no longer view the US as a viable destination.

6. all that the US has left is military power, which it uses to attack insignificant, virtually defenceless third-world countries. like the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, its symptomatic of an empire on its last legs.

7. it's military partners are no longer so willing to let the US use them as military bases

This post is a perfect example of how a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in economics and other social sciences.

[f1000]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
You forget that the Average American home sits on enough land to feed an average american home.

As communities grow, so does the land usage, and farms are sold. No better example than NJ. Once the "garden state", areas that once had nothing but farms for 20 miles don't have a farm 50+ miles. Most farms in my area for example are sold, or for sale. All for building new townhomes or single family homes.

That's all food to feed ppl being lost.

Right now, we produce a surplus (though nobody outside the US wants it due to all the chemicals and engineering linked to cancer among other disesases)... as we grow, and reduce our food supply, we become more dependant.

before we are even 50% of the way there, there are many regions that would have overextended it's sanitation system, and caused widespread disease.

Thanks to being a "global village", that disease problem will have no issues coming over either pond that isolate us from them.

You don't seem to understand our enormous capacity for food output. America has a HUGE food surplus, and it's barely trying to produce. We haven't even started terrace farming hills and mountain sides, for instance. If China and India can both contain over a billion people, then so can the U.S. Starvation, poor sanitation, and disease already affect the rest of the world, but that hasn't stopped the U.S. (nor those other parts of the world) from growing. When Ethiopia, China, and Russia were experiencing famines, most Americans were happily eating three square meals a day. In fact, today, we're eating more than ever .

Whether you understand the situation or not, the U.S. population will approach half a billion people within the next 50 years. Boston to D.C. is going to become one continuous Supercity. Furthermore, this country can easily support a billion plus people, even though this might mean that others in the world must starve. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it is appearing more likely.

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=1291056

[PerryP2]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
This post is a perfect example of how a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in economics and other social sciences.

If you believe my points to be false, refute them one by one with argument

[f1000]

Originally posted by PerryP2:
1. half a century ago the US produced more than half of the manufactured goods in the world. now, sweatshop labour, mainly in china, produces nearly everything. even the flags that patriotic americans wave are made in china.

2. americas industrial base is shrinking rapidly - it's now equal to japans (consider the differences in geographic size)

3. americans have become lazy, degenerate and obese. they consume but hardly produce, and if china stops exporting to america then the US is ****ed.

4. the rest of the world is advancing, the US is stalled. the EU and SE Asia are almost self-sufficient, a far cry from the US's massive deficits and weak dollar.

5. since Bush came to power, the creative and professional classes no longer view the US as a viable destination.

6. all that the US has left is military power, which it uses to attack insignificant, virtually defenceless third-world countries. like the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, its symptomatic of an empire on its last legs.

7. it's military partners are no longer so willing to let the US use them as military bases

I'll bite this time:

1. Half a century ago, a war ravaged world hit rock bottom; it was easy for the U.S. to contribute 50% of the world's GDP. Even with the world now pulling more of its own weight, the U.S. still comprises over 32% of the world's GDP.

2. The U.S. outsources commodity manufacturing to free up its own population (<6% unemployment) for more advanced work. While the Chinese were busy sewing U.S. flags and gluing rubber soles onto sneakers, Americans were developing blockbuster drugs, stealth fighters, and something called the Internet.

3. Having a $10.38 trillion GDP is pretty amazing for a country of unproductive, lazy degenerates.

4. The U.S. economy grew at a rate of 4.1% for the 4th quarter, versus 0.4% for the E.U. Unfortunately for the E.U., the UN predicts even further weakness for the Euro zone. (http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040224/449_13405.asp). With regards to SE Asia, I have two words for you: IMF bailouts. Moreover, those advanced Asians and Europeans might want to check out our newest Mars probes: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/. We're still waiting for them to join us.

5. Tell that to the people waiting in lines to get a visa outside of U.S. consulates throughout the world.

6. ALL countries versus the United States are militarily insignificant and defenseless. There's also that pesky problem of having to confront a dying empire with a $10,383,100,000,000 GDP. To put this number into perspective, the 56 countries of the Muslim world have a combined GDP of $1.46 trillion (about the size of France's). Radicals who call for a global jihad against the Great Satan would do well to read the Economist first.

7. Whether they are willing to host our bases or not (go ask the Eastern Europeans), the number of foreign American bases is INCREASING. http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...574851,00.html

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by f1000:
I'll bite this time:

1. Half a century ago, a war ravaged world was at rock bottom. It was easy for the U.S. to be 50% of world GDP. Now that the world is running at full bore, the U.S. still comprises over 20% of the world's GDP. Much of the slack has been picked up by its allies (E.U., Japan), not China.

2. The U.S. outsources commodity manufacturing to free up its own population (<6% unemployment) for more advanced work. While the Chinese were busy sewing U.S. flags and gluing rubber soles onto sneakers, Americans were developing blockbuster drugs, stealth fighters, and something called the Internet.

3. Having a $10 trillion GDP is pretty amazing for a country of lazy degenerates that barely produces and is being kept alive by China.

4. The U.S. economy grew at a rate of 4.1% for the 4th quarter, versus 0.4% for the E.U. The UN predicts even further weakness for the E.U. ahead. (http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040224/449_13405.asp). As for SE Asia, need I mention IMF bailouts? Self-sufficient, indeed.

5. Tell that to the people waiting in lines to get a visa outside U.S. consulates throughout the world.

6. ALL countries versus the United States are militarily insignificant and defenseless. There's also that pesky problem of having to confront a dying empire with a $10,000,000,000,000 GDP. Come back after we've finished democratizing the rest of the Middle East.

7. Whether they are willing to host our bases or not, the number of foreign American bases is INCREASING.

*sniff*

(sheds a tear at the sheer grandeur of it all)

[f1000]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
*sniff*

(sheds a tear at the sheer grandeur of it all)

What can I say, arguing is fun.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by f1000:
You don't seem to understand our capacity for food output. America has a HUGE food surplus, and it's barely trying. We haven't started terrace farming hills and mountain sides, for instance. If China and India can both contain over a billion people, then so can the U.S. Starvation, poor sanitation, and disease already affects the rest of the world, but that hasn't stopped the U.S. (nor those other parts of the world) from growing. When Ethiopia, China, and Russia were experiencing famines, most Americans were happily eating three square meals a day.

Whether you understand the situation or not, the U.S. population will approach half a billion people within the next 50 years, so now is the time to prepare. Boston to D.C. is going to become one continuous Supercity. Furthermore, this country can easily support a billion plus people, even though that might mean that others in the world must starve. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it is appearing more likely.

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=1291056

China and India import quite a bit, and there is a severe starvation problem in both countries (though India is more high profile).

There is a reason why India isn't called a first world country.


I suggest you talk to someone with an environmental science background, or urban planning. Or perhaps visit between Boston and DC. It's literally impossible for it to become a "continuous supercity". Sewage alone will prevent it. Power grid is archaic as is, the area already (minus Manhattan and Phili) has rolling brownouts on hot days, and it gets worse yearly.

The US food supply is only 1 small (perhaps smallest) aspect of this proposition. And it declines, as population grows.

Americans don't like cities that much. Most Americans post WWII believe in urban sprawl. That's where most of the growth has been post-WWII. Why Los Angeles is endless miles. Why NYC is connected to Phili which is connected to Baltimore, which is connected to D.C. because the suburbs are so large they connect.

All that land 50 years ago, was farm land. Now only a small percentage.

And that's expanding to the rest of the US as well. It's not just an costal thing. That's why farmers are selling.

As they sell, population grows, food supply decreases. There are only so many tricks, before you become like the rest and import (with competition).

Then you get back to the sanitation... your dumps, your sewage plants. People already live on top of these things in some places. There are several communities built on top of old treatment plant land. That's how far some east cost communities go. Is that a health problem? Yes, there are serious health problems in a few places now. And nobody knows what to do about it, who to sue, where to go, what to do with what's there.


Ultimately, you can't exceed your resources. It's that simple. Ethipia can supply a population. Just not the size it holds. Same with China and Russia. Your examples are all cases of when populations exceed their resources.

They all went external to help relieve. In many cases, came to the US for aid... where do we go?

I don't know about you... but I don't think Ethiopia will be much benefit to us.

You can't exceed resources. There's a finite amount of resources available. Much less than you are implying. Not nearly enough for that sized population.

When there is not enough resources... you downgrade to 2nd world country... and continue down to third.

Normally before that, the poor revolt, and economic chaios rips the region appart... which perhaps is the fall of America.

But it will NEVER be able to achieve that. There's not enough resources within. And not enough outside as is, forget about with outside growth as well.


Population is the biggest environmental issue today. Beating global warming, or any other issue out there. Every environmental issue is linked to it.


There's a reason why SARS spread through Asia. It's simply that disease spreads much easier in dense population.

It's the same reason why NYC and LA fear bio attacks the most.

[fizzlemynizzle]

There's a reason why SARS spread through Asia. It's simply that disease spreads much easier in dense population.

Especially when the Chinese government was suppressing any information about it until it was an epidemic.