Re: Religion and social capital
Questions to William: What is it that makes something evil? What is it that makes something good? -- Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail gratis + 3 Ausgaben stern gratis ++ Jetzt anmelden & testen ++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail ++ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The French Say "Non!"
> I'm sure most of you ran across the news that the French rejected > the Euro constitution. > > How do you think this will effect the US? It won't have a direct effect. But the US reaction to it will. > Do you think this will torpedo the EU? That depends on how the other states vote. At first, there would be attempts to save it by making deals behind closed doors. Those deals would be probably in areas where the constitution still allows that state to veto any further changes, while the constitution itself would not be rewritten. Afterwards, the states which voted against would vote again. If that fails, a core group will attempt the 'Europe of two speeds', i.e. to change the EU from a group of 25 into two groups, one going further forward in integration than the other. If that is also vetoed, the core group might create their own constitution, and threaten to secede from the EU. Maybe at that time it would be too late for the other states; the core group might just go forward and secede, happy to leave the spoilsports outside. Frank > > xponent > A Question Of Balance Maru > rob > -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just call me Grampa
Doug Pensinger wrote: > As of 5:25 or so this morning. My daughter gave birth to a healthy baby > boy, 7 lb 4 oz., 20.5 in. (sorry Alberto). Congratulations! Frank -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
> Frank Schmidt wrote: > > *attempting to process* > > I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying > > to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. > > Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for > > his > > district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the > > voters > > might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority > > against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his > > solid majority. > > > > Is that what you mean? > > I think it is more along the lines of ..regardless of what party > an elected official belongs to, I benefit by having that officials > representation. Representation by an opposition party is on the whole > going to be better than no representation at all. > > Frex: I know of people who have had problems with the VA, talked to > their Rep and was able to get some resolution. Reps do not ask who you > voted for by and large, just if you are in their district. This is the > kind of thing almost any Rep would do for a constituent. Are you happy with the current system of single-member districts? Do you think multi-member districts would be worse, although you would probably get a Representative you actually voted for? >>> The other issue is representation. My state is unfairly >>> represented when compared to Wyoming or Alaska. And that >>> unfairness spreads even to representation by electors in >>> presidential elections. Who is elected is irrelevent. To that sentence I cannot subscribe. >>> What is relevent is that my vote is worth less in every >>> way measurable than a voter in Wyoming. That is unfair >>> and should be redressed. >> >> OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is >> adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 >> Representatives, and equal or better representation than >> Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will >> have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and >> 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation >> than Texas. >> >>> I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in >>> any case. >>> >>> xponent >>> No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru >>> rob >> >> So what do you think now? > > Well California is being shorted 12 Representatives. You > think they are going to throw a fit if some other states > get only a little bit better represented? Right now they > are shorted a lot. > > xponent > Status Quotient Maru > rob I looked at apportionment data again. California deserves 435*(CA population)/(USA population) = 52.44 seats. California gets 53. I don't see where they are shorted. Now if the states would be proportionally represented in the electoral college, California would get 65. But since every state gets its number of Representatives plus number of Senators, they only get 55. So you might say they are ten seats short there, but not 12. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
> Frank Schmidt wrote: > >> Even better! > >> A post I wrote last October: > >> > >> The problem with the electoral college is not in the electoral > >> college, but in the way populations are represented in Congress. I > >> would think that this lack of representation on an everyday basis > >> would be of much greater concern. > >> > >> Just to make sure my message is clear: *The Problem Is A Lack Of > >> Fair Representation* > >> > >> Using Wyoming as a benchmark, where you have 1 congressperson per > >> (roughly) 500,000 people, 2 Senators (as always) and 3 Electoral > >> votes. > >> > >> Compare to California where you have 1 Congressperson per 639,088 > >> people, 2 Senators, and 55 Electoral votes. > >> That doesn't sound all that bad offhand, but if California had > >> representation equal to Wyomings you would get 67 Congresspersons > >> and 69 Electoral votes. That is a net gain of 12 Congresspersons > >> and 14 Electoral votes. > >> > >> This lack of representation effects at least 48 states that I can > >> identify. Of those states, 25 are short one representative, and 10 > >> are shorted by 2. Only Iowa and DC are represented in the same > >> proportion as Wyoming and the rest are shorted between 3 and 14 > >> representatives. > >> > >> Law limits Congress to 435 Representatives, but if representation > >> were proportional there would be 549, an increase of 114 > >> representatives. I do not see why this number should be unwieldy or > >> why it would cause difficulty. > >> > >> xponent > >> Census Data Maru > >> rob > > > > The difficulty is, when you have done the above and look at the new > > data, you'll find another state which is better represented than any > > other. I think the current system is so designed that it minimizes > > the difference between the actual number of Representatives (in > > Wyoming 1) and the deserved number (in Wyoming about 0.8), so your > > proposed change would probably make the situation much less > > desireable by your standards. > > > > I find the difference between the voters for district winners and > > the voters for other candidates more of a problem. The first group > > has 435 Representatives, the other has none. The real problem is > > that the most voters will either always be in the first group, or > > always be in the second group; relatively few change between the > > groups. Many in the losing group have already given up voting > > because of that. > > I think you miss the point by some margin here. Regardless of what > party a Representative belongs to, that Rep is still responsible to > everyone in his district in the sense that the Rep is the person one > goes to with a grievence or a plan. I would have no problem asking Tom > Delay (Ugh.my congressmanand one I would never under any > circumstances vote for) for help with some matter, because that is > part of his job. I don't have to like my Rep in order to apply for his > services. *attempting to process* I guess that means that he shows professional courtesy in not trying to piss people off. I don't think that will change the way he votes. Then there's pork barrel spending; he'll vote for things good for his district, and you might benefit from that. And contact with the voters might alert him that in his solidly Republican district a majority against him may form, and might change the way he votes to keep his solid majority. Is that what you mean? > The other issue is representation. My state is unfairly represented > when compared to Wyoming or Alaska. And that unfairness spreads even > to representation by electors in presidential elections. Who is > elected is irrelevent. What is relevent is that my vote is worth less > in every way measurable than a voter in Wyoming. That is unfair and > should be redressed. OK, I just found census data. If the Wyoming problem is adressed in the way I think, Texas will then have 43 Representatives, and equal or better representation than Wyoming. But then Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont will have 2 Representatives, one for between 300.000 and 325.000 people, and therefore much better representation than Texas. > I have a greater interest in fairness than winning in any case. > > xponent > No Taxation Yadda Yadda Maru > rob So what do you think now? -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
> Even better! > A post I wrote last October: > > The problem with the electoral college is not in the electoral > college, but in the way populations are represented in Congress. I > would think that this lack of representation on an everyday basis > would be of much greater concern. > > Just to make sure my message is clear: *The Problem Is A Lack Of Fair > Representation* > > Using Wyoming as a benchmark, where you have 1 congressperson per > (roughly) 500,000 people, 2 Senators (as always) and 3 Electoral > votes. > > Compare to California where you have 1 Congressperson per 639,088 > people, 2 Senators, and 55 Electoral votes. > That doesn't sound all that bad offhand, but if California had > representation equal to Wyomings you would get 67 Congresspersons and > 69 Electoral votes. That is a net gain of 12 Congresspersons and 14 > Electoral votes. > > This lack of representation effects at least 48 states that I can > identify. Of those states, 25 are short one representative, and 10 are > shorted by 2. Only Iowa and DC are represented in the same proportion > as Wyoming and the rest are shorted between 3 and 14 representatives. > > Law limits Congress to 435 Representatives, but if representation were > proportional there would be 549, an increase of 114 representatives. > I do not see why this number should be unwieldy or why it would cause > difficulty. > > xponent > Census Data Maru > rob The difficulty is, when you have done the above and look at the new data, you'll find another state which is better represented than any other. I think the current system is so designed that it minimizes the difference between the actual number of Representatives (in Wyoming 1) and the deserved number (in Wyoming about 0.8), so your proposed change would probably make the situation much less desireable by your standards. I find the difference between the voters for district winners and the voters for other candidates more of a problem. The first group has 435 Representatives, the other has none. The real problem is that the most voters will either always be in the first group, or always be in the second group; relatively few change between the groups. Many in the losing group have already given up voting because of that. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Count Maru wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant > > (although they could conceivably suprise someday) > > but the Electoral College itself does have some > > interesting properties as compared to a straight > > majority vote: > > > > From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny > > By Will Hively > > September 30, 2004 > > I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address > the way low population states are spotted (overall) a > few extra electors as compared with high population > states. This intentionally skews the overall number > of electors and the allotment of electors for dense > population areas. This 'skewing' was decided by the Founding Fathers. It was a compromise between a vote of the people and a vote of the states. In my proposal I have the president directly elected by the people, but I also have some compensation for the (small) states (House+Primaries). I have some other problems with the article. Natapoff seemes to want to reach a conclusion that the Electoral College was good for the US, and he arrived there. He poses a situation where 51% vote for one side and 49% for the other, and but many of the 51% are concentrated in one state, while the 49%, winning two states, would win the election. He asserts the 51% are the bad side, and does not take into account that it might be the other way around. He also states that a high voting power is a safeguard against tyranny (voting power being the amount one voter's decision can influence the overall result). Then he uses some math to explore the voting power in his ideal system, in which people in all states vote similar, but fails to adress the real situation where most states lean heavily to one side or the other. If someone lives in such a state, his voting power is near zero: either if the vote is close nationwide, then his own state clearly falls to one party, and while his state matters in the nation, his vote does not matter in his state. If the other party becomes stronger, his state might become close, and his votes matters there, but his state doesn't matter in the nation where the other party won by a landslide. If someone lives in a swing state, however, the voting power is very high when the nationwide vote is close, because then his vote matters in the state and the state matters in the nation. If the nationwide vote is leaning to one side, his voting power is near zero. So in a nationwide vote leaning to one side, people in all states have a voting power of near zero. In a close vote, people in swing states have a high voting power while the others still have a power near zero. In contrast, if the election was direct, all people would have an equal voting power. If it was close, it would be much lower than in a swing state in the current model, but the sum of the voting powers of all people would be similar to the sum in the current model; just the inequality of voting power would go away. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan: >Frank: > > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, > > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the > > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations > > can be stronger than the US, but at present these > > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, > > this alliance might form, which might start another > > cold war. > > You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany > would prefer a world in which China were the major power? > Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect > the US to look after its security interests. There is a > lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing > that the US can be counted on to ensure that the > government of China does not conquer others (such as the > people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls > the tune. Germany would not prefer such a world, nor would France. But China would. Can you imagine an alliance between China, Russia and several islamic states? Mutual disgust drives them apart, even inside the islamic world, but if push comes to shove... > > >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. > > There would be so many ways to challange the US short of > that type of war, that I can't see this. These 'so many ways' existed in the cold war, too, but we still lived in fear of the mushroom cloud. > > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions > > several times in recent years, but most of the time > > they either weren't altruistic or there was no > > intervention... > > Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why > didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the > genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, > when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no > greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why > did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? > If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense > to take responsibility for those areas where the US was > glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? > > Dan M. Because Europe was deeply split over the Balkans. Germany on one side, Britain and France on the other, the smaller nations on the third. When the civil war in Yugoslavia began, unified Germany had just turned from officially being occupied by the Four Powers to being a sovereign state. German chancellor Kohl had apparently decided to change the foreign policy from humble negotiations in which everyone gained to openly show Europe that Germany was powerful now, and assert support for Slovenia and Croatia. These states were part of Germany's ally Austria-Hungary in WW1 and firmly under German control in WW2 when Hitler encouraged Croatian massacres on Serbs. So Germany's step raised fear in Britain and France whose last memories of a powerful Germany were also extremely bad, and allowed Milosevic to present himself as an old brother in arms. So whenever Germans pointed out Serb atrocities, this was dismissed as German propaganda. It would probably been wise if Germany had let the smaller nations step forward and let them explain to France and Britain what was really happening, but the mood was too confrontational for that. So when as one of the last people Mitterrand realized that the Serbs were *really* the bad guys (when they tried to shoot down his plane), the civil war had become so intense that everyone feared if they stepped in *now*, a lot of soldiers would return in body bags. So in the end, the US was called in, and the Bosnians and Croats got better weapons, until they were strong enough to strike back. If you wonder why I haven't mentioned Russia: at the beginning, Russia was rather trying to reach a peaceful solution, only over the years, ties to Serbia formed and became stronger. If you ask when I would have wanted an intervention: when the fighting in Croatia was over, and an agreement between Croatians and Croatian Serbs was made, Bosnian Serbs began their actions. The Bosnian government asked the EU for help, but the answer was the EU could only help if Bosnia split off Yugoslavia like Croatia did before. After that step of declaring independence, the intervention never came. And back then, many Bosnian Serbs were still demonstrating together with Croats and Muslims that they were all one nation (late in the civil war there were at least three). What's your perspective on this? (for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty, not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
> There has been a great deal of work on voting > science over the past ~200 years. Unfortunately, > the conclusions are "it depends". Is the system > you describe better than the current system? It > depends on what is considered important. > > Here is a summary of vote aggregation methods and > some ways to measure their efficiency and fairness: > > http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node4.html I have read something like that before; I've still bookmarked it so I might find a new perspective there when I read it later. However, the fact that no system is perfect doesn't mean no system is better than the current one. In my proposal, I decided to keep most as it is, but remove the spoiler problem, electors and gerrymandering, and allow the representation of district minorities in the House. As for electors, back when they were introduced they were important people in their states, which the people knew, which would then vote for a president, which the people didn't know. In the present, the people know who runs for president, but not the electors. There still are electors, but they don't have anything to decide anymore these days. -- +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan: >dland: > > Dan Wrote: > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > > >> > > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > > >> > > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and > > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let" > > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps > > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead > > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs > > >> to discipline. > > > > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never > > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A > > > police force that looks the other way lets them > > > run a city. The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war. Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. > > OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't > > find particularly useful, either, especially given > > this administration's disregard for international > > legal systems. > > OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that > one often lets adults do things by not setting up > boundaries. But, given the track record of the > international legal system with regard to genocide... > in particular the fact that international law required > government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure > that always abiding by it is called for. I asked an > unanswered question about the past and potential for > future genocide in Sudan. > > 1) Is the African violation of international law by > temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? > 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called > upon? If the US against the international legal system, they should think about the reactions. Other nations might not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any more. And then the US people will wonder once again why the world hates them so much... If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible genocide, and accidents with US troops killing civilans are rare, the US might even get a better reputation. (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi children were the main reason for the invasion. But I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.) Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic nations. I have hoped for such altruistic interventions several times in recent years, but most of the time they either weren't altruistic or there was no intervention... -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
I wonder if people forget that China is just next door to North Korea, and that they even have an alliance. Not that the Chinese like Kim Jong Il so much, but they'd never tolerate an invasion like the US did in Afghanistan or Iraq. However the Chinese might topple Kim Jong Il themselves if the USA would give them Taiwan in exchange. Which opens another can of worms. -- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
> A few comments interspersed: A lot of my previous mail snipped to which Ronn didn't respond. > At 12:07 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Frank Schmidt wrote: > >Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently > >excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of > >e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) > > How about convicted felons? Those who have been adjudged > mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs? I'm for letting them vote. I'd make exceptions to not let jail populations vote in local elections, and the mentally incompetent if it's not really themselves, but someone else who votes. (I think it's this way here in Germany, and I remember how the 2000 election was heavily influenced by the exclusion of many black people on a 'felons list', many of which weren't even felons. I read that people remain marked as felons even when their jail term is over. If you give a detailed description what makes one a felon, I'm interested) > >and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member > >districts seem to be a popular solution) > > What about as a beginning following existing city or > county lines? As a beginning. There will be a problem, however, if gerrymandering is ended only in Democrat-controlled states or only in Republican-controlled ones. And this doesn't answer the question of representation of the minority side in a district which might never get a chance to win. > >House gets enlarged to 600, > > Actually, it would have to be a number around 8000 if > one made the districts small enough that everyone in > the district had a reasonable chance of knowing their > representative as anything more than a name on the > ballot when he runs for election (or on the news when > he's indicted). (FWIW, would you recognize your > Congressman if you ran into him in 7-Eleven late one > night when you both were there to pick up a gallon of > milk? If you answer that your Congressman would never > go by himself to 7-Eleven late at night to pick up a > gallon of milk, then that's the problem, isn't it?) > > In either case, if we expand Congress, where do we put > them all, not to mention their staffs and minions? > Rebuild the Capitol? If the House remains at 435 seats, many Representatives would lose their seats in a switch to multi-member districts. I would not mind, but I think a lot of Representatives would. The 7-Eleven problem can be half solved: while your Congressman will probably don't know you, you should know him and what he stands for. How else can you decide who to vote for? > >US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not > >registered in any of them get treated as if they are > >living in an additional state. (This way, they get > >represented in Congress) > > If they are in the military or employed overseas and > can reasonably be expected to return to the States at > some point, they should be allowed to vote absentee > in the district of their home of record. Agreed. I meant that when I wrote 'registered in any of them'. > If they have apparently moved out of the US for good, > frex they have stopped paying US taxes, then why should > they have a say in how things are run in the US? I meant US citizens living in US territories. They are under US control and are US citzens, so they should be represented. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US voting reform idea
gets under 50%, all candidates with at least half of that percentage qualify. (2004, Bush and Kerry both got at least 25% in every state) #5: Then it is counted in how many states candidates qualified (all states are equal now). The candidate who has qualified in the most states gets the #1 spot on the Presidential ballot, and all who have qualified in at least half of that number of states get on the Presidential ballot. #6: Finally, the candidates choose their running mates. Two candidates from the same party might choose to run as one ticket instead of against each other. (Additionally, a candidate could get on the ballot if he got support from members of Congress from at least half of the states useful in case the top candidate dies or has to step down because of a scandal but such a candidate would probably be less popular since he didnt run in the primaries, and appear on the bottom of he ballot) (What if the state election results of 1968 and 1992 were primaries results in this model? 1968: Nixon qualifies in 47 states, Humphrey in 48 and DC, and Wallace in 10. 1992: Bush qualifies in 50 states, Clinton in 50 and DC, and Perot in 22. I think Perot would have made it on the ballot with the option of voting for more than one candidate, but otherwise only Democrats and Republicans. In 2000 John McCain couldve been on the Presidential ballot against Gore and Bush; and with IRV he could have won, being popular on both sides) I think the change in the Presidential primary and in additional House seats might get support from small states, of course only if the general public would like it at all... Comments? Critique? A better proposal? (PS Yes, Ive also thought about how the German voting system with closed lists could be changed. Right now, most parliamentarians are in effect chosen on state party conventions, not really by the people who mostly just decide how many seats the parties get. But I don't think many here would be interested in that) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com Read or the owl will eat you +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> Would you be interesting in an African's economists perspective on just > wanting riches and morality in the EU? (Not me, but my Zambian daughters) > > Dan M. Actually, yes. I would like to believe that Germany or the EU are either helpful or at least fair to poor nations, but I've read enough to see it's not really like that. But I don't know exactly how close to or far from the truth that belief actually is. Frank -- +++ GMX - Die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 1 GB Mailbox bereits in GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
Of course the foreign policy of a state should help that state. But the question is: what will help the state? Making enemies and pushing away friends doesn't work. I think the greatest part of the problems of the USA is that many people around the world think it only wants more riches and power for itself, and isn't following any moral reasoning. -- +++ GMX - Die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 1 GB Mailbox bereits in GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: it goes on and on...
> Think Tank's Ideas Shifted As Malaysia Ties Grew >Business Interests Overlapped Policy And about what in this article do you want to discuss here? I already think that the current US government is making bad policy and using questionable methods to get what they want. But alas, you cannot impeach the president for his actions because he was faithful to his wife. So we all have to wait until 2008, when GWB's second term runs out. So, what do you want to discuss? (PS: I'm ambi. *duck*) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic! Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
