PenisPeople Ruining the World

[Guest]

Condoleezza Rice should be the first female President of the United States.

Rice is smarter than Hillary Clinton, has the right point of view on the issues and has much more experience at the top levels of government.

And Rice has integrity and principles, which Hillary sorely lacks.

I would be interested to know what Rice has to say without being under the duress of serving the current administration. I feel she may be constricted by this and obliged to tow the 'party line', even when it might go against the grain. Rice needs the time to be separated from the Bush administration and to let her own political identity be fully known before she runs for president - but this could well be a possibility for the future.

"Duress" is defined as "constraint by threat; coercion." What leads you to believe that Rice is under any "duress"?

Recall that Rice was National Security Advisor in the administration of George H.W. Bush, the present president's father, from 2001 through 2004. Rice is one of the people most responsible for formulating the "party line" of the present Administration.

Has Hillary Clinton "let her own political identity be fully known"? She is a political chameleon without any distinct "political identity." Her views are malleable and transitory depending on the latest opinion polls.

I don't know either of the women but from every thing I know you're wrong on both counts. First from all accounts Bush is very difficult to disagree with, as Colin Powell and others have found. Secondly, Hilary has shown herself very capable on the committees she has worked on. Even Gingrich had to give her a nod as having a capable grasp of military matters. Not surprising given her husbands total lack of insight on the subject. Incidently I highly respect Gingrich for breaking party lines to acknowlege Hilary on this.

There are plenty of reasons not to want Hilary in the Presidency. The biggest reason not to want her there is her Competancy because her "Fully Known Political Identity" should terrify any conservative.

[Guest]

Well, I guess you've got me there - I do want to see the democrats take a whack at things. When one party is in power for too long they start to forget they are elected by the people for the people and become a law unto themselves. I see the same thing in my country - but this time it is the democrats that have been in for 3 terms and my opinion is that the republicans need to have a term next time round because the rule of the democrats for such a lengthy period of time gives rise to corruption.

Corruption occurs the first time a hopeful government official asks for and recieves a donation. All parties know something has been bought.

It is a criminal offence under (international) law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties.

Interesting isn't it that this law applies to foreign officials, but not your own officials? On the other hand the whole Lobby structure serves the function to allow access to the government that wouldn't occur under any other system I know of. Your voice would never be heard without lobbyists! Reality can suck that way.

[jojo22]

Oh I'm sure it applies to all officials - by the letter of the law - and forms of corruption, either small or big, can be found everywhere.

The particular point I was referring to is that when people have been re-elected time and again they start to forget they are there but for the grace of the people, to administrate the funds of the people, and instead become focused on their own 'master plans', not to mention being motivated to keep themselves in the cushy little number they have fallen into - somtimes at any cost (though I don't really blame them for this - the system begs for it to happen).

My big bug bear is the sense that the Government is ever encroaching further into the world of academics, changing the rules little by little so that more and more the role of academia - to inform the public and influence development into new areas - is becoming more pressured to dance by the puppet strings of what the Government wants them to dance to.

[Guest]

Condoleezza Rice should be the first female President of the United States.

Rice is smarter than Hillary Clinton, has the right point of view on the issues and has much more experience at the top levels of government.

And Rice has integrity and principles, which Hillary sorely lacks.

I would be interested to know what Rice has to say without being under the duress of serving the current administration. I feel she may be constricted by this and obliged to tow the 'party line', even when it might go against the grain. Rice needs the time to be separated from the Bush administration and to let her own political identity be fully known before she runs for president - but this could well be a possibility for the future.

"Duress" is defined as "constraint by threat; coercion." What leads you to believe that Rice is under any "duress"?

Recall that Rice was National Security Advisor in the administration of George H.W. Bush, the present president's father, from 2001 through 2004. Rice is one of the people most responsible for formulating the "party line" of the present Administration.

Has Hillary Clinton "let her own political identity be fully known"? She is a political chameleon without any distinct "political identity." Her views are malleable and transitory depending on the latest opinion polls.

I don't know either of the women but from every thing I know you're wrong on both counts. First from all accounts Bush is very difficult to disagree with, as Colin Powell and others have found. Secondly, Hilary has shown herself very capable on the committees she has worked on. Even Gingrich had to give her a nod as having a capable grasp of military matters. Not surprising given her husbands total lack of insight on the subject. Incidently I highly respect Gingrich for breaking party lines to acknowlege Hilary on this.

There are plenty of reasons not to want Hilary in the Presidency. The biggest reason not to want her there is her Competancy because her "Fully Known Political Identity" should terrify any conservative.

You admit ignorance.

Why should anyone listen to you?

[Guest]

You admit ignorance.

Why should anyone listen to you?

I admit ignorance of the feelings and motivations of both women and even if I did this wouldn't be the forum to discuss it. I offered examples of how the poster was wrong in other circumstances. These are not incidental circumstances, but core to his premises.

First in the case of Powell and others giving sometimes heated objections to the management style of Bush. There are articles peer reviewed by political scientists as well as pop articles that you might be more familiar with that outline in detail how Bush manages. The End of the Bush Revolution in Foreign Affairs August edition is a good start to a tree of primary sources.

Secondly I stated that it is not Clintons lack of a "Fully Known Political Identity" and lack of competance that should be feared, but the fact that she's competant, enough so to gain a Senatorial seat by the way, and that her "Fully Known Political Identity" should scare anyone that values capitalism and conservatism. It's clear from her voting, her speaches and her acts in the Senate. Not withstanding universal healthcare destroying competition in heath care to bring the USA down to the level of the UK and the rest of Europe, or that she'll attempt to turn Social Security and Welfare into voting blocks of bread and circuses for her party, but she's a downright dangerous liberal in general.

[Guest]

Oh I'm sure it applies to all officials - by the letter of the law - and forms of corruption, either small or big, can be found everywhere.

The particular point I was referring to is that when people have been re-elected time and again they start to forget they are there but for the grace of the people, to administrate the funds of the people, and instead become focused on their own 'master plans', not to mention being motivated to keep themselves in the cushy little number they have fallen into - somtimes at any cost (though I don't really blame them for this - the system begs for it to happen).

My big bug bear is the sense that the Government is ever encroaching further into the world of academics, changing the rules little by little so that more and more the role of academia - to inform the public and influence development into new areas - is becoming more pressured to dance by the puppet strings of what the Government wants them to dance to.

I can't argue with the former and I also can't argue about the latter.

There really is no way to hold a government accountable. In the case of Australia and the UK I think the issue is more pronounced as the government is larger than the private sector. A MP holds about the same spending power as a couple of the largest corporations and a MP can easily crush any corporation, but nothing can crush a MP with enough money in his advertising budget.

I have read of the government getting involved in the lower school grades in the USA, testing and the "no child left ahead" laws for instance, but none in higher Academics. What have you noticed?

[jojo22]

Oh I'm sure it applies to all officials - by the letter of the law - and forms of corruption, either small or big, can be found everywhere.

The particular point I was referring to is that when people have been re-elected time and again they start to forget they are there but for the grace of the people, to administrate the funds of the people, and instead become focused on their own 'master plans', not to mention being motivated to keep themselves in the cushy little number they have fallen into - somtimes at any cost (though I don't really blame them for this - the system begs for it to happen).

My big bug bear is the sense that the Government is ever encroaching further into the world of academics, changing the rules little by little so that more and more the role of academia - to inform the public and influence development into new areas - is becoming more pressured to dance by the puppet strings of what the Government wants them to dance to.

I can't argue with the former and I also can't argue about the latter.

There really is no way to hold a government accountable. In the case of Australia and the UK I think the issue is more pronounced as the government is larger than the private sector. A MP holds about the same spending power as a couple of the largest corporations and a MP can easily crush any corporation, but nothing can crush a MP with enough money in his advertising budget.

I have read of the government getting involved in the lower school grades in the USA, testing and the "no child left ahead" laws for instance, but none in higher Academics. What have you noticed?

Well, I think MP's can and often are crushed in a manner that gives me cause to think I wouldn't touch their job with a ten foot barge pole

What I have observed, or at least my summation of it, is that policies are put in place by the incumbents, money is planned out well in advance and therefore there is a large committment to them - which is perfectly understandable.

However, there must remain a healthy level of 'reactivity' and sufficient money put aside to allow for these scenarios - I would expect all Governments would allow for this - given that they need to be seen to be reactive to the needs of the people as it is the people's money that they spend and when they spend it unwisely then they are less likely to be re-elected.

What I am observing is a gradual but notable push away from reactivity to more proactivity in which the Government has more say and decision over what the issues are that need to be funded and addressed. This could lead to a costly narrow vision, as those in power become wed to a course of action and their ability to see the larger wood for the trees is reduced. Ongoing development along these lines could well lead to very substantive treating of issues 'at the bottom of the cliff', rather than preventative action.

[jojo22]

You admit ignorance.

Why should anyone listen to you?

I admit ignorance of the feelings and motivations of both women and even if I did this wouldn't be the forum to discuss it. I offered examples of how the poster was wrong in other circumstances. These are not incidental circumstances, but core to his premises.

First in the case of Powell and others giving sometimes heated objections to the management style of Bush. There are articles peer reviewed by political scientists as well as pop articles that you might be more familiar with that outline in detail how Bush manages. The End of the Bush Revolution in Foreign Affairs August edition is a good start to a tree of primary sources.

Secondly I stated that it is not Clintons lack of a "Fully Known Political Identity" and lack of competance that should be feared, but the fact that she's competant, enough so to gain a Senatorial seat by the way, and that her "Fully Known Political Identity" should scare anyone that values capitalism and conservatism. It's clear from her voting, her speaches and her acts in the Senate. Not withstanding universal healthcare destroying competition in heath care to bring the USA down to the level of the UK and the rest of Europe, or that she'll attempt to turn Social Security and Welfare into voting blocks of bread and circuses for her party, but she's a downright dangerous liberal in general.

What do you make of Cheney's comment:

"I think Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate," Cheney said. "I think she could win. I hope she doesn't. I disagree with her on nearly all the issues, but nobody should underestimate her. She's a very serious candidate for president."

Interesting that - what is his angle or is he just sharing his honest opinion? I look at this statement and I think about the psychological impact it will have in the minds of both democrats and republicans. Here is the republican vice president basically saying that Clinton as the next president is a fait acompli. Once you put that out into the collective consciousness then people are like 'ok, that's what's going to happen', and so it happens. My feeling is that it would happen anyway - but what he has done here is given her an incredible endorsement.

I think Hillary is a natural choice in these troubled times. The people are seeking something familiar and through her husband's presidency they feel they know some measure of Hillary.

[Guest]

Well, I think MP's can and often are crushed in a manner that gives me cause to think I wouldn't touch their job with a ten foot barge pole

What I have observed, or at least my summation of it, is that policies are put in place by the incumbents, money is planned out well in advance and therefore there is a large committment to them - which is perfectly understandable.

However, there must remain a healthy level of 'reactivity' and sufficient money put aside to allow for these scenarios - I would expect all Governments would allow for this - given that they need to be seen to be reactive to the needs of the people as it is the people's money that they spend and when they spend it unwisely then they are less likely to be re-elected.

What I am observing is a gradual but notable push away from reactivity to more proactivity in which the Government has more say and decision over what the issues are that need to be funded and addressed. This could lead to a costly narrow vision, as those in power become wed to a course of action and their ability to see the larger wood for the trees is reduced. Ongoing development along these lines could well lead to very substantive treating of issues 'at the bottom of the cliff', rather than preventative action.

Machiavelli is often held in contempt, by those that haven't read his Discourses. What you are describing, translated into modern English allowing changes for some words over time, could have been written by him. He was a great Republican, all Western Republics used his revolutionary theories (at the time) in their creation.

I highly reccommend, not reading Discourses, but doing a sit-in class at your university on his work. It's virtually impossible to read his work today without a strong background in his age and the land he lived in.

[Guest]

What do you make of Cheney's comment:

"I think Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate," Cheney said. "I think she could win. I hope she doesn't. I disagree with her on nearly all the issues, but nobody should underestimate her. She's a very serious candidate for president."

I think he was being brutally honest.

[Guest]

Oh I'm sure it applies to all officials - by the letter of the law - and forms of corruption, either small or big, can be found everywhere.

No I disagree, labor unions and other lobbyists use cash and/or cash equivalents such as all expense paid vacations (aka junkets) as bribes. As I said though this system, if not abused, is effective during the intra-election cycle for getting the will of the people into the offices of politicians. As Machiavelli states repeatable, The People are much better at finding and fixing problems than any Prince or Princes. The problem of "what is abuse" is tricky and where there are tricky questions there are tricky people willing to test the limits of decency.

The particular point I was referring to is that when people have been re-elected time and again they start to forget they are there but for the grace of the people, to administrate the funds of the people, and instead become focused on their own 'master plans', not to mention being motivated to keep themselves in the cushy little number they have fallen into - somtimes at any cost (though I don't really blame them for this - the system begs for it to happen).

People as individuals can be successful at many things, but they have ruts of thinking and what worked for them in the past impacts what they do in the future. This can and historically does lead to bad decisions. Again Machiavelli states repeatable that these Princes are in no shape or form superior to The People in finding and fixing problems.

The system leads to more and greater power at the top of the political system. Princes and Princely families are created. Machiavelli, using Rome as an example believes that Republics are by their nature "good" and that this original goodness must occasionally be brought back into the government. You have to sometimes rebuild the Republic from the original plan.

Well, I think MP's can and often are crushed in a manner that gives me cause to think I wouldn't touch their job with a ten foot barge pole

They do it for the power. Power is dangerous and can also lead to conspiracies when the leaders of the Republic are unloved by The People. These conspiracies aren't going to always be visible to The People, when they are visible they have fallen into one of the many traps Machiavelli writes about. Today politics are becoming very personal. I really could care less what Clinton did with a cigar for instance, but it's not a original problem.

What I am observing is a gradual but notable push away from reactivity to more pro-activity in which the Government has more say and decision over what the issues are that need to be funded and addressed. This could lead to a costly narrow vision, as those in power become wed to a course of action and their ability to see the larger wood for the trees is reduced. Ongoing development along these lines could well lead to very substantive treating of issues 'at the bottom of the cliff', rather than preventative action.

Oh yes. The People sometimes have to correct the course of their government. Princes are blind. The USA has been blessed with a large and vibrant culture of dissidents. They are our greatest assets.


IMHO of course.

[rivellino]

You admit ignorance.

Why should anyone listen to you?

I admit ignorance of the feelings and motivations of both women and even if I did this wouldn't be the forum to discuss it. I offered examples of how the poster was wrong in other circumstances. These are not incidental circumstances, but core to his premises.

First in the case of Powell and others giving sometimes heated objections to the management style of Bush. There are articles peer reviewed by political scientists as well as pop articles that you might be more familiar with that outline in detail how Bush manages. The End of the Bush Revolution in Foreign Affairs August edition is a good start to a tree of primary sources.

Secondly I stated that it is not Clintons lack of a "Fully Known Political Identity" and lack of competance that should be feared, but the fact that she's competant, enough so to gain a Senatorial seat by the way, and that her "Fully Known Political Identity" should scare anyone that values capitalism and conservatism. It's clear from her voting, her speaches and her acts in the Senate. Not withstanding universal healthcare destroying competition in heath care to bring the USA down to the level of the UK and the rest of Europe, or that she'll attempt to turn Social Security and Welfare into voting blocks of bread and circuses for her party, but she's a downright dangerous liberal in general.

What do you make of Cheney's comment:

"I think Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate," Cheney said. "I think she could win. I hope she doesn't. I disagree with her on nearly all the issues, but nobody should underestimate her. She's a very serious candidate for president."

Interesting that - what is his angle or is he just sharing his honest opinion? I look at this statement and I think about the psychological impact it will have in the minds of both democrats and republicans. Here is the republican vice president basically saying that Clinton as the next president is a fait acompli. Once you put that out into the collective consciousness then people are like 'ok, that's what's going to happen', and so it happens. My feeling is that it would happen anyway - but what he has done here is given her an incredible endorsement.

I think Hillary is a natural choice in these troubled times. The people are seeking something familiar and through her husband's presidency they feel they know some measure of Hillary.

In all the polls on the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton loses handily to both Republican Senator John McCain and Republican former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. See http://pollingreport.com/2008.htm

Of particular significance is the TIME poll taken October 3-4, 2005 in which 37% said they will "Definitely Not Support" Hillary Clinton compared to only 19% for Giuliani and McCain. If going into a campaign with 37% of the electorate firmly opposed to one's candidacy does not make defeat certain, at the very best it leaves zero margin for error.

And "error" is this context is inevitable because once Hillary Clinton becomes a formal candidate, she will be forced to take firm positions on issues that divide the Democrats internally -- the two main opposing camps being the left wing "netroots" (and fellow travelers) on one end and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (which led Bill Clinton to a two-term presidency) on the other end. On the issue of the Iraq War alone, the Democrats have no defined policy and are so deeply divided that virtually any firm position will alienate a substantial block of Democrats. Clinton has successfully fudged these divisive issues to date, but she cannot do so as a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries.

In order to win the presidency, either a Democrat or a Republican candidate must not only carry their base with a large turnout but must also carry a majority of independent voters. There is no way Hillary Clinton can appease the left wing of the Democratic base without alienating independents and there is no way Clinton can appeal to a majority of independents without alienating the left wing Democratic base.

And if either McCain or Giuliani picks Condoleezza Rice as a vice-presidential candidate, a Republican victory is all but certain. In the last several national elections, 85-90% of blacks voted for Democrats. If Rice siphons off even 10% of the black vote such that 25% of blacks vote for the Republican ticket, which she can easily do based on the polls, there is no conceivable way for the Democrats to win.

[Guest]

I agree with you but have a few reservations.

Many blacks believe Rice is a turncoat which could be used to drive more Democratic voters to the polls. It's less the Independents choice than the choice of the non voters, who might be enraged enough to shut off the television long enough to vote.

A very negative ad campaign such as we're seeing today in the 2007 campaigns could be effective enough to bring Democrats to power. I hope and don't think Clinton will be a Democratic runner. Negative ads work best when you're attacking incumbants and incumbant parties although they can be more effective than talking issues anyway.

The election mostly hinges on the religious vote and it's leaders. Say what you will about how well the Republicians have honored their pledges to the religious right, they have given incrediable and I believe unprecedented access to the highest levels of government to those religious leaders.

[jojo22]

Watching the polls come in by state from the last elections one things struck me pretty loud and clear, no small part of that election was won in the churches. However, I think the outcome has been more about the church of money than the church of the people, which I think more and more church-going folk are going to come to agree with.

[Guest]

check it - Iran and nuclear power for energy - discussion to follow.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1220649.ece

Buoyed by the success of its proxy militia in Lebanon, Iran has rejected a demand from the West, aimed at curbing Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, setting itself on a new course of confrontation.

On the eve of a self-imposed deadline for responding to a Western offer of economic and technology incentives in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday: "We won't suspend."

"Everything should come out of negotiations but suspension of uranium enrichment is not on our agenda," Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran.

He said that Iran would offer a "multi-faceted response" to the proposed package tomorrow.

Anything short of the suspension of the uranium enrichment that many fear would eventually lead to production of a nuclear weapon, will force the United Nations Security Council to consider its threat of sanctions against Iran. In a resolution adopted at the end of last month, the council ordered Iran to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Nicholas Burns, the United States Under-secretary of State for political affairs, warned last week that he expected the Security Council to move rapidly in September to impose sanctions against Iran because of the country's intransigence.

Iran underlined its determined stand by holding war games over the weekend, which included the televised launch of Saegheh ("lightning" in Farsi) short-range missiles. The television commentator said the ground-to-ground missiles had a range of between 50 and 150 miles.

Iran has said the military exercises - called The Blow of Zolfaghar in reference to a sword that belonged to Imam Ali, one of the holiest figures of Islam for Shia Muslims - were aimed at "introducing Iran's new defensive doctrine".

Iran clearly feels it has a strong position in the light of Israel's failure to disarm the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon, despite a 34-day war launched after the Shia guerrillas in Lebanon captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, has warned that Iran would be prepared to use oil as a weapon if sanctions are considered, prompting market analysts to predict a further surge in the oil price as tomorrow's deadline looms.

The proposed package from the West provides for direct talks between Washington and Tehran, as well as an offer of nuclear technology and the easing of some trade restrictions.

However Iran has consistently refused to suspend uranium enrichment, saying that its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, and is permitted under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Western concerns about the prospects of a nuclear Iran have deepened since the beginning of the Lebanon war, which has been described as a proxy war between the US and Iran.

The Iranians may feel that they can play for time because the UN decided that any "further decisions" would have to be discussed by the 15-member Security Council, where veto-holding powers Russia and China have been supporters of Iran.

check out Jarvis Cockers new song "c*n*s are running the world". Its actually very apt indeedy