BW,

Lol. That's only true in Political Science, History, Sociology, Psychology, and a few other departments. They adhere to something called post-modernism - truth is relative, we should empower the weak and disadvantaged, and often post-modernists have very relaxed standards etc. Personally, I think post-modernists are full of it, and there is a reason I attend a college where the philosophy department is strictly an 'Analytic' department. When the Philosophy Department is Analytic, I have found that post-modernism tends to also be weaker in other departments as well. In what is very rare, our Political Science department is very non-post modern. Seriously, if you do not have empirical support for what you're saying, they implicitly tell you to stfu. Moreover, they teach with a distant tone, and never try to get anyone to commit to a social cause or rally. Our History department is the same way. It's really cool. They teach giving you the entire social and political climate behind all the events, and they outright make fun of post-modernists (I asked my history professor last semester what he thought of post modernism, lol).

In short, BW, what you are talking about only applies to post-modern departments. When the professors are you-better-provide-strong-evidence, they tend to be very informative and open to counter arguments. My professors are awesome this way, all of them have been open to argument, treat truth as absolute, and demand that an argument be defended. Where I go to college, my professors are willing to engage in discussion, and the professors have the attitude of 'you better have a good argument or stfu.' Moreover, if you can defend your argument, I have found that they will respect you. What's even better, is that their political views tend to be centrist or center right.

Anyhow, share your hatred for post-modernism. Stop bashing the Academia. The fields in Science and Math, moreover, are almost never post-modern. Ever notice a difference in their attitudes toward truth among those departments?

______

Anyhow, I used to think this as well, but in my experience - I am from the upper middle class and interact with highly educated and intelligent people on a daily basis - intelligent Americans tend to be religious. Atheism/Agnosticism is just very rare in this country. However, I will say that in the US, intelligent people give more cause/effect explanations rather than "zomg God is testing my faith again!" or making the pretention that God favors them for their hard work.

China wastes petrol, not the US

Liberals often argue that there are human rights (referring to positive freedoms) that the state should guarantee. They include health care, social security, and education. As for me, I wholly disagree. On what basis do these rights come from? How do we discover what these rights are? How do we know which rights we have and do not have? If you ask me, it's all pretentious. The fact is is that what we "ought to have" is wholly pointless theory to pursue. We should concern ourselves with the way things are, how we want them to be, and identify the means to accomplish them.

My point is, get "rights" and "ought" out of your vocabulary. There is no empirical basis for believing in them.

I do not see any reason why the poor should be lifted. They wholly merit their lot in life due to stupidity. By pursuing costly decisions like drugs and teen pregnancy, they have guaranteed their lot in life. It's not because they are disadvantaged that they are poor, they are poor because of the decisions they have made. They have nothing to blame but themselves. My view is that we let them die or adapt. In the former we have saved the state from providing for a parasite, in the latter we have produced a great man or woman. When the state assumes a paternalistic role, stupid decisions perpetuate through the generations.

Let Health Care have minimum cost and optimal efficiency. Make it a wholly free-market system, even if it excludes the bottom 5%.

I don't care. If Obama wins, all men in uniform are traitors to the US if they do not organize a coup.

Freelancer,

Yes, thank you. Not only is America using its coercive powers without much strategy, it also isn't making optimal use of diplomacy. It's about knowing when and how to use coercion, and when and how to use diplomacy. Bush apparently doesn't understand much about when and how.

Aroc/Skoe,

I do not have to remind you that fanatic leaders are rare, and most are not going to wage a costly war of mutual destruction. It could come to that, but of course with the "strategic" or "adaptable" use of coercion and diplomacy that wouldn't happen. We would not coerce people around enough to force them to do that. You aren't going to fight a robber who asks for one dollar, but you will if he tries to wantonly kill a family member or steal your life savings. I am not talking about an Assyrian Empire, "Do as we say or DIE!" That got them owned. I am saying that diplomacy and coercion need to be done strategically. In what formula will the two yield optimal results for America? When it comes to war, I am talking about more effectively using America's military. I am also implying that we should let countries know that we are willing to talk and collaborate, but if you want to go Hugo Chavez or Osama bin Laden, you're dead meat. It's the speak softly and carry a big stick adage.

There is nothing wrong with talking to your enemies. Diplomacy can accomplish your goals with much less cost. What is wrong is giving huge concessions that weaken you but empower your enemy.

Flint, buy a copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War. I think you will be able to pick out a number of mistakes that Bush is making according to this timeless work on warfare. A prolonged war is one of them. Sun Tzu states that wars should be ended quickly and decisively, and prolonged wars avoided.

> The Dragon Agh wrote:

> Never figured the "oh nohes, taxes are the devil" thing.
Taxes are paid to the state to make the state do stuff. And those stuff are good (except your wars...) for the citizens.

But your "I only care about myself" attitudes screws it up completely.

Vote Obama... or someone else, just not that silly McCain guy. If you care ofc >

The government could do more good to its citizens by doing less. I can't say what the optimal level of good to citizens that government involvement is, but I know that Obama goes far past the line. Right now less is better. Give me economic freedom or give me death! I would sooner vote for Bush to have a third term than surrender my economic rights. Without economic freedom life is meaningless.

Xeno,

Lol. Dark sense of humor you have.

Freelancer,

Well I'm sure he will gain a lot of enemies among very powerful people. So it's not too far fetched imo.

BW,

Eh, I don't know what any of that has to do with Iraq and Democracy. Yes, people who are restricted by government have limited options and lower drive. Yes it is inefficient for government to control the economy. Yes people with ambition want to come to western nations. Your point is?

And I disagree that social reforms come first in the evolution of the social and economic state of a society. Rather, changes in circumstance (like the economy - increased transportation, industrialization, and communications etc) lead to social and political changes. Iraq needs to have those changes first before it can develop a middle class, an educated population, and later a viable popular republic.

Yell,

Yeah. It was because of the uneducated masses back then, that our early Republic was limited to white, male, landowning elites.

And I should make it clear that a strong middle class and educated population does not guarantee a democratic government. Wilhelm II could have maintained power had he continued Bismarck's policies. But a successful Democracy first and foremost requires a strong middle class and educated population. All Democracies that continue have a strong middle class and educated population, but not all such populations have Democracies.

Zarf,

I disagree that it would necessarily be seen as America being selfish. It would be possible to pull off a kind of policy change realization toward something that was more pragmatic. And even if that was the case, who cares? Continued occupation is simply expensive in terms of money and morale. All political leaders should heed Sun Tzu's advice. Win and end a war quickly, and avoid fighting a prolonged war. Prolonged wars are bad, you want to avoid them.

No Democracy has ever persisted without a strong middle class and educated population. Show me a time when it has been otherwise. A critic like me can easily explain the continuity of Iraq's government by attributing it to American support, and without us it would be in big trouble. Second, even a failing democracy can persist for a few years, look at the First French Republic. The Iraqi government will be unable to deliver and satisfy the population. What we need to do is install a pragmatic-minded dictator loyal to the US, and then leave once he has an iron grip on the country.

So BW and Yell. Tell me a time when a Democracy was able to continue without a strong middle class and educated populace. You may cite early America, but then our country had much more limited voting restrictions then. In our early history we had a strong middle class, and that middle class and the landowning elite ruled the country. It was only after more than a century later when education was widely available that we were able to viably operate with universal suffrage.

But in Iraq...

Laughable middle class. Poorly educated population, and most live in squalor. You're telling me that a democratic government with universal suffrage can survive? WTF?

Let me tell you this

IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE! And when it's been tried, it FAILED!