I read that this morning and -- what an idiot. 

The tree lighting they are talking about takes place in a space that is one city block in size.  This city block was converted to an amphitheater - it's rather ugly.  But local bands and street performers hang out with the homeless, and occasionally they have special events there.  The tree lighting thing is usually pretty crowded - all the christmas lights downtown go on at the same time.  Very pretty.

So a bomb there would have been pretty nasty.  Glad I don't go to those sort of entertainments.

There is a fairly large Somali immigrant population in town.  They keep to themselves.

And once again, we have a male from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 45 who is a clear danger to America.

Yet we are made safe because I can't bring the half bottle of water that I bought inside the security screen on an airplane. Granny can't bring her knitting needles and the TSA has to be able to determine if you have been circumcised.

That crap makes us safer than checking the very people who might be worth looking at.

You know what? I do my share of Bush-Big Business-Pollution-bashing, but, when someone from a foreign country does it, it raises my hackles.

Yes, the US is guilty of...a lot of things BUT, imo, we are in many ways far better than many other countries.

The EPA, for example, although it is often bound up by red tape, has done plenty to keep this country and it's citizens safe. One reason many Big Business leave our soil is so they can avoid costly environmental regulations by moving to countries who are more interested in commercialism than ecology. Pollution in China and India is wayyyyy out of control.

As for terrorists hating the US for commercialism - hell, don't buy the crap and go after YOUR OWN  governments for allowing it in your country. Commercialism is just like illegal drugs - if there were no demand for it, it wouldn't exist.

Ummm, and this is all to blame on the big bad US of A? I don't think so. ALL governments of the world are corrupt in some form or another and it's the People who suffer. You can't blame the US for the troubles in your country any more than I can blame China for ours. All of these government are equally guilty of screwing up the lives of the 'common folk'.

Take the Muslim terrorists for example... like this new guy who said he 'hates America'. Why the hell was he living here in the first place? Instead, he should have been home trying to reform his own government.

You don't go to someone else's home and tell them how to live and if you don't like what's going on there, you leave...you don't blow up their house.

Some people are just plain STUPID.  Those who claim to have god on their side are the worst of all.

 I just say that America is the one that exports its own corruption abroad the most. Domestic corruption is tolerable, but the invading corruption must be delivered back where it came from. Terrorists of any nation will gladly throw a bag of dynamite on top of the delivery. And americans wonder why they're attacked for no reason, after all, who's the best country in the world?

People would love America (again once more), if America would respect the concept of a state border like other countries. I wonder how Mr Obama would like a foreign secret prison, missile base or army on his back yard.
Hell, it even gets into cultural loathing. Local people who had an experience with common Americans usually tell long stories how crazy these people are... Of course, all nations have their characteristic vices, but american ones are the most visible. Hell, they're even proud of them because America is on the top today and does not yet pay for its mistakes too much. Just look at the action film production, 4th july, stuff blown up, people shot, action hero mows foreign baddies single-handed, flags everywhere, saluting soldiers...
Just think how it looks to the young local generation that watches and loves Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist Addendum, Money as Debt, Michael Moore, and demonstrates against american military base in Brdy mountains. The amount of people who can feel a sympathy or understanding to terrorists attacking America still increases.

No, people will not hate a new world superpower, if that superpower will consist of all nations' equal representatives... sort of like United Nations with balls.

<convulses in fit of painful laughter>

You don't seriously believe any of that zeitgeist crap, do you?

Step 1. Talk outdated and historically disproven socialist nonsense.

Step 2, ??????

Step 3. Utopia!

Bwahahahahaha!

What your talking about would likely involve the nations involved giving up some of their sovereignty.  Do you think they would be willing to do that?  If so under what conditions or for what purposes?

You're kidding, right? First of all, communism and socialism are virtually indistinguishable. But what your cult leader Jacque is calling for is communism at any rate, as he proposes the redistribution of wealth. In effect forcing political control on others through economic means.

Ummm, the Marshall Plan where America spent billions to rebuild a war torn Europe, including Germany? That wasn't exactly Germany getting it right, nor did it work out all that well. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is a poor repair job.

Which sadly you aren't going to get.

Dude, the words 'bureaucratic' and 'expenses to a minimum' are mutually exclusive. Bureaucracies don't tend to comprehend restraint, especially when they can remain faceless. This is exactly what the internet promotes. And how exactly is the internet going to make things better? You don't see much improvement of health care from it. You don't see it doing a lot to expedite grain shipments to drought ridden areas. All it does is facilitate communication. It does virtually nothing in terms of resource allocation.

Really? All experts? Every single last one of them? Do you realize just how cultish that statement sounds?

And you accuse me of not understanding socialism? Capitalism works as long as there is supply and demand. Growth is desirable, and due to human greed a recurring theme. But numerous mom & pop operations have functioned fine for centuries without expanding. However, you are biting yourself in the ass here. Out of one side of your mouth you are saying that your welfare state has to have a thriving capitalist base in order to function. The other side is saying that capitalism, and therefore the welfare state, is doomed to failure. Make up your mind. Only a socialist would be foolish enough to try and have their cake and eat it too.

Hear that Pakistan? (India 1999). Hear that Israel? (Gaza 2008). Hear that Ethiopia? (Somalia 2006). Hear that African Union? (Anjouan 2008). Hear that Georgia? (South Ossetia 2008) Hear that Russia? (Georgia 2008)

I actually agree. The current social state of the world is built upon outdated practices. This is not an economic failure. This is a failure of society to wake up and smell the roses. Those billions of poor people need to understand that there are not now, and never will be, enough resources to keep feeding the hungry mouths they churn out. They need to understand that birth control and education are their quickest, surest way out of poverty. But for the most part, they, like you, have fallen sway to some cult that makes empty promises and keeps them bound to ignorance an poverty. Changing the way people accumulate wealth isn't the answer. Prying open their ignorant eyes is.

Uh huh, yeah. Unfortunately, your cult leader proposes to make things worse, not better. The idiot claims that the earth has an abundance of resources and energy, and wants to parcel them out fairly to the poor, ignorant breeders to help them churn out more poor ignorant breeders. The problem is, resources and energy are scarce and growing scarcer, not abundant. His proposal would deplete our resources at an accelerated rate,  reducing us all to the stone ages in 20 years instead of 50. Brilliant!

Look dude, the human race in general is stupid. Monumentally, tragically, unrepentantly stupid. They don't know how to manage their own resources. Do you really think that giving them more is going to make their lives better? Hell, most American's would find a way to convert their allocations to lifetime passes for Nascar events!

I bought my first car at age 16. I worked washing dishes, hauling hay, and building fence to get it. I paid my way through community college by working as a mason's assistant 12 hours a day on Saturdays and Sundays. I used that quick education as a springboard, continuing to educate myself and work. I have accumulated wealth at a more or less steady rate for damned near 30 years, and no secret cabal of Greedites showed up on my door to put a stop to it.  I worked for what I have, and I worked damn hard. Do you really think that I would just hand over what I have earned to feed a bunch of primitives living in a desert that refuse to pick up their clay pots and hike 50 miles north to live in a lush rain forest because their culture tells them that where they are squatting is their land? Fuck that! I would sooner convert all of my assets into cash and burn it in the fireplace than to send one single penny of my money to someone too stupid to try and better himself. In fact, I had rather convert it all into sardines and feed it to the fucking seals out on the ice than to give it to some faceless bureaucracy that thinks it knows better how to allocate resources than I do. And I had damned rather blow it on caviar and champagne in one night of debauchery than hand it over to a socialist eco cult that is too stupid to even grasp simple concepts like there being too little arable land to feed billions indefinitely.

Fix our education system. Capitalism works pretty damn good even with morons involved in it. Think of how it will prosper if you educate the morons. And while you are at it, do something about the population. I decided at an early age to not further burden the world with children. That is commitment. But here you are, spending what, $19.95 a month on internet when you could use that money to feed 50 starving Africans? WTF?  Put your money where your mouth is, and have your cult leader do the same. Do you think those fucking scale models he has blown thousands on are making a difference?  The guy is no better than a fucking televangelist, offering vacuous promises of a greater tomorrow if only you send him money today.

Hi Luminon. Sorry it has taken me so long to write a response. A side business of mine, an off-shore sweat shop, was having problems. The child workers were protesting the 18 hour work days by pretending to collapse from exhaustion. I had to get the U.S.M.C. to fly in and force the children to flog one another at gunpoint to improve their productivity.

Now I know that it is going to be hard to defend free market economy in a world where thousands of Americans risk their lives to flee to the workers paradise of Cuba, but try I must.

Lets begin with your flawed view of communist economy, as you seem to think that communists do not employ a socialist economy. A socialist economy normally involves land and business ownership by the government instead of individuals, progressive taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution, and price control. There is nothing in this to demonstrate a difference between Switzerland's economic formula and that of the former Soviet Union's economic formula. Both rely on socialist economics. One might even be inclined to argue that the only way to maintain a socialist economy is for the already overly empowered state to exert more and more control over its citizens as they grow weary of heavy taxation and chronic shortages.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement. This was recognized even by Aristotle, and can be seen time and again in overgrazing, overfishing, and numerous other examples. This is a strong indicator that the pipe dream of Utopian socialism is doomed to failure. The only ways to prevent this in a socialistic society is for the government to exert ever increasing control to the point of Draconian rule, or for the government to come to its senses and abandon socialism until the next head in the clouds dreamer comes along and proposes it again and the whole nasty cycle repeats.

 
Britain wrestled with various combinations of democracy and socialism for decades with horrible consequences until Thatcher tossed socialism into the waste basket and revived capitalism. Mitterand did the same with France and reversed the edematous inflation and trade balance collapse brought on by socialism there, and is quoted as saying "The private sector is recognized as the creator of social wealth"

Now lets look at Sweden.

On 26th February 2008, Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden gave a talk at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The subject that he presented was: "The New Swedish Model: A Reform Agenda for Growth and the Environment"

  The speech can be read in full from the Swedish Embassy or here

  The passages that interested me the most were the following:

  At the beginning of the 1970s Sweden also had the fourth highest GDP per capita measured in purchasing power parity. Sweden was blooming. Then came Sweden's mad quarter of a century.

 Growth fell off. Unemployment rose. The quality of welfare declined. What, then, were the factors that made the Swedish model stop working?

The economic downturn that followed the two oil crises in the 1970s of course had a negative impact on Sweden. Also, the financial crises and macroeconomic shocks of the early 1990s had substantial consequences for the Swedish economy. But these shocks also affected other industrial countries. And it is difficult to argue that Sweden was particularly vulnerable to the international business cycle. This alone cannot explain why Sweden fell from fourth place in the OECD's ranking of member countries by GDP per capita around 1970, to eighteenth place in 1997.

 Instead, I would argue that the explanation lies in other factors. The vital balance between the institutions in the model disappeared and socialism swept over Swedish society.

We saw budget deficits and high inflation undermine macroeconomic stability. In many respects this was the result of irresponsible and short-sighted political actions. We saw a sharp rise in taxes, especially on labour, together with an expansion of benefit systems that undermined the work-first principle and made it less worthwhile to work.

The education system was distorted and Swedish schools focused less on knowledge. Changes in international competition were met with subsidies rather than reforms. Free enterprise was not encouraged; instead it was questioned.

 We saw a rise in unemployment and the percentage of working-age people supported by various social benefits and subsidies rose from 10 per
cent in 1970 to about 20 per cent in the present decade.

  What took a hundred years to build was nearly dismantled in twenty five years..

(Emphasis mine)

 
Today state pensions, schools, health care, public transport and post offices have been fully or partly privatized over the last decade, making Sweden one of the most free market-orientated economies in the world, analysts say.

This must be a fluke! Surely Sweden is alone in this, right? Well, not quite. Back in the 1960's Canadian senator Claude Castonguay helped bring socialism to Quebec's health care. He is sometimes called the Father of Quebec medicare. But today he has changed his position. As head of the Task Force on the Funding of the Health System, he has released a 314 page report that calls for reforms in the system. In it he says "We must face facts: today, the public system does not seem to be able to satisfy public demand." He then suggests that medical professionals be allowed to venture into he private field and give a greater role to the private sector in general. 40 years is taking a long time to admit ones mistakes, but better late than never. Thank you Claude, pioneer of Canadian socilized medicine! The report can be read here.

And what is this with China? Those guys have really become world players now that they have opened the privatized floodgates onto the global market. They have come a long way from the stagnant socialist economy of the 70's. With just a little dabbling with free market in 1978 they saw nice profit gains. This encouraged them to abandon state owned enterprises and adopt economic liberalization that has driven them up to the number 2 spot as a global trading power, right behind America. Roughly a third of their industry is now privatized. We can only imagine the prosperity that country would achieve should it abandon socialism entirely.

Following China's lead, even that zany, lovable socialist leader of North Korea, the charming Mr. Kim Jong-il, has began dabbling in capitalism, reaching its apex with the Kaesong Industrial Region. Time will tell if relations hold with the South long enough for it to help North Korea's economy, but at least even someone like Kim eventually has enough sense to realize that the socialist economic system is a failure.

We really need look no further than the figures of those below the poverty line by nation to see the death throes of socialism. A simple consultation will show that about half of the poor exist in countries with strong socialist programs in place, with the bulk of the remainder being from those war torn countries that have become the welfare recipients of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.  This is no failure on the part of free market, as free market has never really been given an opportunity in these countries. In fact many of them are in their current state after being under the influence of socialist regimes. And yet the socialists like to blame the failure on capitalism, as if it is the capitalist's fault that socialism fails time and again. Perhaps the socialist needs to take a look under the hood of their vehicle to understand where rests the actual problem.

I hate to break the sad news to you, but socialism is a brain dead corpse kept on life support by those who are unwilling to let its decayed body go in peace. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated its cardiac failure in the 1920's with the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy. The lifelong socialist and American economist Robert Heilbroner  perhaps grudgingly admitted this, and summed it up nicely after the fall of the Soviet Union. "It turns out, of course, that Mises was right. Capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure. Here is the part that's hard to swallow. It has been the Friedmans, Hayeks, and von Miseses who have maintained that capitalism would flourish and that socialism would develop incurable ailments."

Incurable ailments indeed. It is time to pull the plug on the cadaver that is socialism. But do not grieve its death, as it shall rise again with the next generation of starry eyed idealists that have yet to realize that the road to economic hell is paved with the best of intentions.

Declaration of basic rights? Are you referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The one that article 17 of mentions how individuals are entitled to own property and not be deprived of their personal property? That set of rights? That is one of the rights you are proposing we trample all over by stealing from the corporations to feed the lazy masses. 

And to answer your question about not having money to eat, no, nobody is entitled to a free lunch. And you know why? Because all too often a free lunch becomes a hundred free lunches, a free roof, free utilities, free health care for the spouse that is churning out kids around the clock, and free insurance for the dozen snot nosed lazy slack jawed whelp that grew up with the knowledge that you don't have to work for a living. You're right. They quit being homo sapiens the moment they became parasites.

If you want people to see to the welfare of others, reinstate a feudal system and appoint the successful ones as lords. Give them a couple hundred unsuccessful serfs and they will take care of those serfs so long as those serfs are productive. The ones that are unproductive will very soon become an example for the others, giving them further incentive to be productive. Large harvest festivals and bountiful stock are the reward and social service for lean times. Nothing short of this, no social system of elevated ideals, is ever going to make people work for the common good. There are far too many stupid, lazy, and selfish individuals out there for your Utopian pipe dream to ever work.

By the way, you never did explain why Sweden abandoned your perfect system, why Claude Castonguay now suggests that socialized medicine isn't working in Canada, and why China is engaging in privatization and free enterprise.  Why isn't socialism working for these people, hmmmm?