Pangloss

Hehe, no, in fact at the ceremony in which she awarded Gates his KBE she asked Eric Clapton what he did for a living.

Right, but we're speaking hypothetically; I know Iraq was not aggressive in 2003 (I opposed the current conflict). Let me clarify. You said: So my question is, at what point *would* you consider it valid to "wade in" and topple a foreign government? What criteria would you use, if any? My guess is that your quote above is not an indication of a general policy of appeasement-at-all-costs on your part, but rather a reflection of a requirement of clear aggression prior to military action. That's great, I support that, but what I'm saying is that this needs to be made more clear to the American public. When they hear things like "I don't consider toppling foreign governments to be defensive measures" from a European, what they think they're seeing is "peace in our time" and "never chain Berlin". Educating the American public is only a small part of the picture, obviously. We need to work hard on issues like deciding when it's a good idea to send in the troops, defining issues like genocide, and solving problems of corruption. Yes indeed. One expects a higher level of attentiveness and insight from people actually charged with the responsibility of running a country. But of course only a fool would believe that their list of executable actions is not tempered by a knowledge of "what the public will accept", which is in turn based on the public's flawed and faulty knowledge, not the leadership's enlightened, expert knowledge. One need look no farther than European public reaction to American foreign policy, and how it guides and limits (or in the case of Spain, terminates) European governmental actions, to see this in action. I can assure you that the same sort of thing happens here in the States.

Fair enough, and I generally agree with the sentiment. But how would you have handled, say, Hitler annexing of the Sudetenland, etc? I imagine you have a response, and knowing you it's likely an intelligent one, but let me just preceed it by pointing out that not all Americans are as smart as you or (at the risk of sounding immodest) me. So they tend to view the above sentiment as weak. Right or wrong, that's the kind of mentality we have to work around here. I disagree in the sense that I don't think democracy has a tendency to arise. I raise China as an example because I think it shows that, for example, economic success is a stronger motivation for change than freedom. Most people care more about food in their bellies and TV sets in their living room than voting rights or freedom of travel. China is proving this on a daily basis. China may ultimately prove me wrong and you right (and I'll be the first one to cheer). But every indication at the moment is the opposite. It's about to become a nation with a middle class as large as the entire population of the United States (or most of the EU combined), and they're too busy buying cars and refridgerators and making 0.9 (preferably male) babies per family to even think about taking to the streets. So any revolution in China won't come from the proletariat, it'll come from the bourgeoisie, but only after a long period of exploring their current status. Who is to say what steps the CP will take to stave off any negative trends down the road, just as they have somehow managed so far? Does this not serve as a potential proof of my refutation that democracy does not necessarily have a tendency to arise?

Regarding the "world police" image, there is a point of view in this country that it is the correct image, and in fact the correct position for this country to take. I.E. that we should be going around the world being the cops and setting things straight, because in the long run it makes things more peaceful and easier for us to deal with. That position is one of the hallmarks of neo-conservativism. Note that that's by their own definition -- it says as much on the PNAC home page, for example (links available upon request, but this is old news for most folks here). But most Americans are not aware that (a) it's the current administration's closest allegiance of policy-makers, or (b) that it's a strong motivating force behind this administration's foreign policy. Furthermore, most Americans would not likely support that position, were it to become part of the public debate. They don't know about it, and wouldn't support it if they did.

Nah, Canada's already the 51st state (and a blue one at that). (runs for cover--just kidding!)

Hmm, ok thanks.

This is just an aside, but for what it's worth, I actually have a problem with people deciding not to use Microsoft technology *solely* because it's Microsoft technology, i.e. because they don't like Microsoft having a monopoly. I really think such people are missing the point. Competition works if and only if people are willing to consider it. That's a *two* way street. If Linux or Java aren't going to work for me (and there are PLENTY of applications that Java is a poor language for), then I *need* that freedom to try a Microsoft solution. Otherwise it's not competition -- it's just another kind of enforced usage. Why *wouldn't* that just lead to another kind of problem down the road? Put another way, anybody who (and I'm not suggesting anyone here would do this) would praise people for trying Java or Linux, but chastise people for trying Microsoft, is completely missing the point of WHY we want people to try Java and Linux.

Is there any way to set a longer period of time before the new message timer expires? What I mean is that when I come to the forum I see immediately which boards have new messages, and when I enter those boards the threads with new messages are bold. But then a timer starts, and often I don't get back to the board listing before it expires, so I can no longer see which threads have new posts in them that I haven't seen yet. Is there any way to adjust that setting? I've looked through the User CP and nothing leapt out at me, so I thought I'd check here.

Demosthenes, no offense, but you're kinda all over the map here, and I don't think I'm the only one having a hard time following you. Maybe you should pick one subject and focus on it a little more. Do you want to talk about anti-counterfeiting measures, the value of the dollar in overseas markets, separation of church and state, or the image of Americans overseas?

Phi makes an interesting point -- it's not so much displays of our national heritage that are at issue, as it is the indoctrination of the next generation of Americans. Honestly some of the arguments made by both sides are a little silly on that point, though there's a grain of truth in both of them as well.

It was interesting. A good overview of his early life, and some interesting insights on his relationships with Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush (41) and Clinton. It makes a nice companion piece to any investigation into the change from Keynsianism to market-based economics in the latter half of the 20th century (such as a reading of Daniel Yergin's "The Commanding Heights"). I would say interesting but not especially dramatic. (Which is how biographies should be, IMO. I'm firmly in the Carl Sandberg camp when it comes to that subject.)

I'm not familiar with the phrase "early doors".... is that a British thing? Anyway it's a valid point.

Actually I think your currency analogy may be flawed. The changes to American currency were quite dramatic, just not very obvious. And currency in other lands is often dramatic and bold specifically because those nations want it that way, not because it's harder to counterfeit. Some good articles on the changes to US currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit#Anti-counterfeiting_measures http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/moolah/anatomyprinting.html

Another note of interest from yesterday in Iraq: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=541819 ABC News has half a story on this, at the above URL. Apparently the weekend attack that killed 130-ish workers waiting to apply for police jobs has prompted an estimated 2,000 Iraqis to take to the streets in protest over terrorism in their country. Good for them. The story is not being widely reported. As you can see from the URL below, the New York Times did not include the demonstration in its regular report on events in Iraq today: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/international/middleeast/01cnd-iraq.html?hp None of the major network news shows carried it on their 6:30pm broadcasts last night. The Times did pick up an AP Wire story on the event, but that story is no longer available, having "scrolled off the wire", I suppose.

By the way, NY Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman had an interesting related point in his column the other day: (Requires login, but not email confirmation, so if you want to read it just go to http://www.nytimes.com and go to the columnists page and click on Friedman's link.)

I read about some of this in Justin Martin's biography of Alan Greenspan. Interesting times.

No, I haven't. Didn't they get a divorce, and he went on to espouse (so to speak) a different form of Objectivism, which she disapproved of?

Excellent question(s)! Wish I had an answer. Nice post. And I share your hope, even if we're just a couple of goofy optimists. Perhaps, but I think that threat of force has only been one of the methods used. Walk softly and carry a big stick, remember? You can make a case that we wielded the big stick too soon, but you cannot make a case that we never tried diplomacy at all. Well put.

Interesting post.

Correct.

Cadmus and I were just talking about this in the Java thread next door. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9302 It's an interesting question. Certainly the momentum is on Microsoft's side, especially with a new version of Visual Studio making huge waves right now amongst Java devs who are participating in the beta test, from what I hear. I think the Java folks are going to have to start combining their efforts more thoroughly. They've already started doing this somewhat with projects like Eclipse, but they need to get more big companies on board with their deep pockets.

As many of you know, I wasn't a fan of the invasion of Iraq. But it's interesting to look at some of the changes that have taken place since that invasion. - Elections in Palestine - (Local/Limited) Elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time - Elections in Iraq - Syria opens a dialog with Israel for the first time since... the 1973 war (?) - A massive democracy movement breaks out in Lebanon Obviously our invasion of Iraq was not the direct cause of all of these events. But you can just as easily make an argument that none of them might have happened were it not for that invasion and the pressure it's brought to bear on Middle Eastern governments. I'm curious what you guys make of all of this.

As with politics, I'm a bit of a centrist when it comes to this subject. I'm a long-time MCSE/admin/help-desk type who's gone back to school in order to pursue a Masters/PhD and perhaps a 2nd career in academics. My only serious programming experience has been in pursuing this, but I've done minor programming projects off-and-on over many years going all the way back to GBasic and beyond, so I'm reasonably familiar with the current and historical basics in both PL and OOP. My main interest is in seeing what other people fine useful and what they prefer to use. I'm interested in HCI approaches and techniques, and how they affect both programmers and end-users.