NationStates Jolt Archive

Did anyone else catch Peter McKay's pathetic display of brown-nosing in his visit to Washington last week? Check this out:

"I'm delighted to be here. I've always been a fan of yours,'' he told Rice at a joint news conference in an ornate department ballroom.

"And much of our discussion today confirmed what I already knew about you from having followed your career.''

See the full article here. (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=55a1c14c-e0e8-4b5d-bf5b-a12f49370668)

Was anyone else sickened by this display? He sounds like a teenager with low self-esteem fawning over a rockstar he idolizes. Is this part of what MacLean's was describing as our new "muscular" foreign policy? (sorry I don't have the link ... but it is in their latest issue, sandwiched somewhere between Lord Conrad Black defending George W. Bush's presidency, and Barbara Amiel on open-toed shoes). Is this the kind of face we wish to present to the world as an independent country?

*projectile vomits all over monitor*

I feel better, now I -

*resumes projectile vomiting*

(Oh, I can't wait for us to dump these cretins from office)

(Oh, I can't wait for us to dump these cretins from office)

I'm kind of worried we won't. I didn't think a Harper minority could be this bad, but so far, my worst fears are coming true.

I hate how it is bascially up to the media who gets elected. I hear they are giving the Conservatives such an easy time, it's disgusting.

Here is a good article someone sent me today--from the "alternative" media:
President Stephen Harper (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/04/20/PresidentHarper)

The only thing missing when Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks is an American flag as the backdrop...

I'm kind of worried we won't. I didn't think a Harper minority could be this bad, but so far, my worst fears are coming true.
And you think you're alone in your worst fears? Fuck, even Emerson is ruing the day he answered Harper's phone call. We'll drive these turd-loaves from office, don't doubt it for a minute.

I hate how it is bascially up to the media who gets elected. I hear they are giving the Conservatives such an easy time, it's disgusting.

Here is a good article someone sent me today--from the "alternative" media:
President Stephen Harper (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/04/20/PresidentHarper)

They are getting a free ride right now. But most governments get a honeymoon period. My hope is that theirs ends before they are up for re-election.

I mean seriously, there was barely a whimper when they backed out of our Kyoto commitments in everything but name only.

And you think you're alone in your worst fears? Fuck, even Emerson is ruing the day he answered Harper's phone call. We'll drive these turd-loaves from office, don't doubt it for a minute.

I find it hilarious that Harper had to deny the rumours that Emerson was unhappy. If there is no truth to them, why doesn't Emerson stand up and say so?

I find it hilarious that Harper had to deny the rumours that Emerson was unhappy. If there is no truth to them, why doesn't Emerson stand up and say so?
Presumably Emerson has greater ethical qualms than El Presidente.

I find it hilarious that Harper had to deny the rumours that Emerson was unhappy. If there is no truth to them, why doesn't Emerson stand up and say so?

Because he can't defend his choice to cross the floor with "wanting to make a difference" anymore, and everybody will have proof he's just a gold-digging power-grabbing bastard who wanted a cabinet position.

Presumably Emerson has greater ethical qualms than El Presidente.

Speaking of Ethics, here is the dope on their much vaunted Accountability Act. (http://fipa.bc.ca/home/news/138)

Basically 250 pages of hot air. And before anyone accuses FIPA of being a partisan source, during the election they praised Harper's proposed Accountability reforms. They are just deeply disillusioned with what he is actually delivering. As anyone who really cares about Ethics and Accountability should be.

By the way... it's Mackay.

You suck at complaining. :)

It's all horribly embarassing to see it happening. I've been fighting an altogether withering feeling with each new headline. What about the poor bastard last week, some unsuspecting civil servant fortunate enough to get a sci-fi novel published, only to have his little book (I dunno what you call it - release?) party kiboshed by the Federal Minister he answers to... because in his sci-fi story, a future society is contending with environmental pollution generated due to government apathy both north and south of the border in the present day.

I feel humiliated having these people in charge. But I'm in a mood to fight 'em, not to roll over and take it.

It's all horribly embarassing to see it happening. I've been fighting an altogether withering feeling with each new headline. What about the poor bastard last week, some unsuspecting civil servant fortunate enough to get a sci-fi novel published, only to have his little book (I dunno what you call it - release?) party kiboshed by the Federal Minister he answers to... because in his sci-fi story, a future society is contending with environmental pollution generated due to government apathy both north and south of the border in the present day.

I know. And I love how they buried the announcements about the Kyoto cuts before a holiday weekend in the hopes that no-one would notice. The culture of secrecy and double-speak sets in mighty fast for a government that was supposed to be the most accountable ever.


I feel humiliated having these people in charge. But I'm in a mood to fight 'em, not to roll over and take it.

Fair 'nuff. I just have to figure out the best way to do it. I don't want to wake up one day and find out we opted into Theatre Missile Defence while the media and public were napping.

I feel humiliated having these people in charge.

More humiliated than 13 years of corrupt, low-brow, back room sneakiness chaired by a pouty Quebecer with a speaking impediment, followed by a pouty Quebecer with gesticulation problems?

Or more humiliated than the possibility of having a moustache as prime minister?

Just checking. :)

Better than an obese Albertan with a hatred for Canada...



Whats wrong with a mustache :(

Or more humiliated than the possibility of having a moustache as prime minister?

Just checking. :)

I agree ... Happy Jack should lose the moustache.

Whats wrong with a mustache :(

If he would just trim it; God knows what's in that thing.

I could care less - a whooole lot less - for whatever arrangement of facial hair people favour. It has so little bearing, especially in light of this swaggering, autocratic turn our minority PM has taken.

Meh, you call that sucking up?

Your country's leader turns up in the USA and says lots of nice things about GW Bush and USA. He even defends the Iraq war and spends time with GW Bush on his ranch.

<Guess the country> :)

I've always been a fan of yoursFunny

Why can't Peter :fluffle: Condi?

Considering Condoleeza Rice is perhaps the most sucessful and powerful female african-american politician in American history, and is a strong candidate for a vice-presidency or presidency of the US, I don't see where the problem is in Mackay doing some proper diplomatic shoulder-rubbing.

Really, what do people expect? Evil Glares and bags of flaming dogshit on her doorstep? I'm sure that would get us far...

Considering Condoleeza Rice is perhaps the most sucessful and powerful female african-american politician in American history, and is a strong candidate for a vice-presidency or presidency of the US, I don't see where the problem is in Mackay doing some proper diplomatic shoulder-rubbing.

Really, what do people expect?
There is a difference between shoulder-rubbing and ass-kissing.

For our foreign minister to approach their Secretary of State and begin the relationship by pointing out he feels she is his superior is not a good way to start. He should be approaching her as an equal, not as a fan.

Because of the way he's gone about it though, Canadians now have to wonder if his actions will be those that are the best for Canada, or the behest of his idol.

Because of the way he's gone about it though, Canadians now have to wonder if his actions will be those that are the best for Canada, or the behest of his idol.
Cease wondering. It's painfully obvious what our "relationship" with the US will be all about during Harper's (hopefully very brief) tenure as PM.

There is a difference between shoulder-rubbing and ass-kissing.

For our foreign minister to approach their Secretary of State and begin the relationship by pointing out he feels she is his superior is not a good way to start. He should be approaching her as an equal, not as a fan.

Because of the way he's gone about it though, Canadians now have to wonder if his actions will be those that are the best for Canada, or the behest of his idol.

I think we're making much ado about nothing. There are far more serious issues with the Conservative governing style than Mackay's professed admiration of Rice.

I'm sure millions of Canadians will be tossing in their sleep over this one. :rolleyes:

Really, what do people expect? Evil Glares and bags of flaming dogshit on her doorstep? I'm sure that would get us far...

That's canadans for you. They won't be happy until they have completely isolated themselves diplomatically.

I guess when that happens, they can use that thunderbirds thing they are so proud of to defend themselves.

There are far more serious issues with the Conservative governing style than Mackay's professed admiration of Rice.

Call it a symptom of the far-geater malady currently gripping our nation.

I could care less - a whooole lot less - for whatever arrangement of facial hair people favour. It has so little bearing, especially in light of this swaggering, autocratic turn our minority PM has taken.

*snort* What is this, Nazi Germany? Get over yourself. :p

We don't live in Happy Socialist Utopia, we live in a competitive capitalist state that has very little time for slackers and ubercomplainers who spend their lives depending on the government to get by.

Canada spells laziness N-D-P! ;)

Canada spells laziness N-D-P! ;)
NDP! NDP! NDP! :D

BTW, why can't Peter go out with Condi? I know she's a better match than Belinda. :D

We don't live in Happy Socialist Utopia, we live in a competitive capitalist state that has very little time for slackers and ubercomplainers who spend their lives depending on the government to get by.

Canada spells laziness N-D-P! ;)
Canada spells 'two-faced hypocrites and bagmen with an overweening sense of entitlement' C-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e.

Right back atcha, Mr. Unhappy Capitalist Dystopia.

Funny

Why can't Peter :fluffle: Condi?

It might help him get over Belinda ...

We don't live in Happy Socialist Utopia, we live in a competitive capitalist state that has very little time for slackers and ubercomplainers who spend their lives depending on the government to get by.Actually, we live in a progressive country.

I think we're making much ado about nothing. There are far more serious issues with the Conservative governing style than Mackay's professed admiration of Rice.

I'm sure millions of Canadians will be tossing in their sleep over this one. :rolleyes:

You are right. There are more serious issues. Like the fact that they were probably discussing Canada's entry into Theatre Missile Defence (aka Star Wars).

Theatre Missile Defence
Somehow that name makes it sound like Cineplex Odeon is under seige.

Somehow that name makes it sound like Cineplex Odeon is under seige.

No, they won that war when they bought out Famous Players.

No, they won that war when they bought out Famous Players.
Mebbe they're planning for the inevitable showdown, what with the AMC/Cinema Guzzo coalition forces amassing projectors along the hotly-contested Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec border...

That's canadans for you. They won't be happy until they have completely isolated themselves diplomatically.

I guess when that happens, they can use that thunderbirds thing they are so proud of to defend themselves.

Harsh.... we've got polar bears you know...

Canada spells 'two-faced hypocrites and bagmen with an overweening sense of entitlement' L-i-b-e-r-a-l.

Right back atcha, Mr. Unhappy Capitalist Dystopia.

That's more like it... :p

Although there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of difference (so far).

You are right. There are more serious issues. Like the fact that they were probably discussing Canada's entry into Theatre Missile Defence (aka Star Wars).

To the victor go the spoils.

Really, our problem is our antiquated election/parliamentary system. Time to rebuild it, so that parties with less than 50% of the popular vote aren't running the show.

Considering Condoleeza Rice is perhaps the most sucessful and powerful female african-american politician in American history, and is a strong candidate for a vice-presidency or presidency of the US, I don't see where the problem is in Mackay doing some proper diplomatic shoulder-rubbing.

Really, what do people expect? Evil Glares and bags of flaming dogshit on her doorstep? I'm sure that would get us far...Yes,It is getting quite tiring listening to people who think that whatever the Americans do,we should do the opposite,come on guys and gals this is not a wierd version of simon says.The Americans are the powerful ones, the best we can do for now is to get on their good side.

Yes,It is getting quite tiring listening to people who think that whatever the Americans do,we should do the opposite,come on guys and gals this is not a wierd version of simon says.The Americans are the powerful ones, the best we can do for now is to get on their good side.Yeah... sure... :rolleyes:

Why would we want to be America's bitch? We do not want Americans to make our own decision, do we? I don't care if America is a superpower or not, good or bad, this is our sovereignty, we make our own decision not them. I don't like idiots and assholes crossing our border and tell us what to do, just to get their way. It's like if some guy tell you to jump off the bridge, will you do it?

To the victor go the spoils.

Really, our problem is our antiquated election/parliamentary system. Time to rebuild it, so that parties with less than 50% of the popular vote aren't running the show.

Agreed. Democracy should not be winner take all, and it certainly should not be about a party that got 35% of the popular vote ramming through an agenda that 65% of us did not want.

Yeah... sure... :rolleyes:

Why would we want to be America's bitch? We do not want Americans to make our own decision, do we? I don't care if America is a superpower or not, good or bad, this is our sovereignty, we make our own decision not them. I don't like idiots and assholes crossing our border and tell us what to do, just to get their way. It's like if some guy tell you to jump off the bridge, will you do it?

There's a difference between 'doing what the bigger guy says' and maintaining a good working relationship. The previous government's continued blasting of the United States didn't serve our working relationship well at all, and it certainly didn't help our 'sovereignty' any either.

Since coming into power, the conservatives have spelled out which issues are important to Canadians, such as coming to terms on Softwood, Arctic sovereignty, and showing that Canada supports an international effort in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. However, one mustn't forget that we have the largest trading arrangement in the world. One goes into business relationships trying to create an atmosphere of trust and accountability, which was not apparent in the previous administration.

This is an increasingly global economy, and good trade and political relations with our closest neighbour (and currently most powerful country in the world) is common sense. The age-old fear of Americanization here in Canada is a tired concept. Time to look at the bigger picture folks. We're all North Americans.

There's a difference between 'doing what the bigger guy says' and maintaining a good working relationship. The previous government's continued blasting of the United States didn't serve our working relationship well at all, and it certainly didn't help our 'sovereignty' any either.

Since coming into power, the conservatives have spelled out which issues are important to Canadians, such as coming to terms on Softwood, Arctic sovereignty, and showing that Canada supports an international effort in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. However, one mustn't forget that we have the largest trading arrangement in the world. One goes into business relationships trying to create an atmosphere of trust and accountability, which was not apparent in the previous administration.

This is an increasingly global economy, and good trade and political relations with our closest neighbour (and currently most powerful country in the world) is common sense. The age-old fear of Americanization here in Canada is a tired concept. Time to look at the bigger picture folks. We're all North Americans.

I agree that the Martin administration tended to use the US as a bit of a whipping boy to focus our dissatisfaction on.

That being said, I question both the Harper administration's approach and priorities in international relations. As noted earlier, the tone of MacKay's comments hardly set that meeting up as a meeting of equals.

I question whether Artic Sovereignty is an intelligent priority or a key issue to Canadians. Legally, it is a shaky claim. We might just be setting ourselves up for dissapointment. I also think it is a bit of red herring to distract us from other important foreign affairs issues, such as our participation in Star Wars (which has enormous implications for our soverignty, and our national security).

Also coming to terms on softwood should not involved caving to US demands. They have been shown time and time again to legally be in the wrong. They signed the agreement, they have to abide by it. To give in on this will only encourage them to play fast and loose with the terms of this agreement.

I also agree that we need to look at the bigger picture, but I think North America is too limiting. We all need to see ourselves as citizens of the global community, and accept the responsibilities that come along with that. The US also needs to step up to the plate in that regard.

Did anyone else catch Peter McKay's pathetic display of brown-nosing in his visit to Washington last week? Check this out:



See the full article here. (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=55a1c14c-e0e8-4b5d-bf5b-a12f49370668)

Was anyone else sickened by this display? He sounds like a teenager with low self-esteem fawning over a rockstar he idolizes. Is this part of what MacLean's was describing as our new "muscular" foreign policy? (sorry I don't have the link ... but it is in their latest issue, sandwiched somewhere between Lord Conrad Black defending George W. Bush's presidency, and Barbara Amiel on open-toed shoes). Is this the kind of face we wish to present to the world as an independent country?
I don't trust Canada. Or Swaziland, for that matter.

it's not a surprise Blinda dumped Peter, he made quite the fool of himself with Rice.... an embarassment to himself and the country...

I question whether Artic Sovereignty is an intelligent priority or a key issue to Canadians. Legally, it is a shaky claim. We might just be setting ourselves up for dissapointment. I also think it is a bit of red herring to distract us from other important foreign affairs issues, such as our participation in Star Wars (which has enormous implications for our soverignty, and our national security).

I agree that Arctic sovereignty is a questionable issue as far as priority goes. Legally, it's only as shaky as someone's will to enforce it. At the very least we would have the right to extend a claim over a certain mile radius (I can't remember the amount) from the main shore of NWT/Yukon/Nunavut. That would be standard international practice.

The 'Star Wars' stuff, although a sensible and legitimate focus for debate, isn't that big a deal in my opinion. We already co-operate with the US on continental defense through NORAD, and as far as I'm concerned it's an extension of that. If it weren't for the Liberal's minority position at the time, it would have been signed by now. Nobody's talking about putting nuclear weapons on our soil. We're talking about missles to shoot down incoming missles. We've been co-operating with the US on such matters long before the rise of 'Terrorism' (in it's modern format).

Also coming to terms on softwood should not involved caving to US demands. They have been shown time and time again to legally be in the wrong. They signed the agreement, they have to abide by it. To give in on this will only encourage them to play fast and loose with the terms of this agreement.

All right, you're right that they're wrong. (Had to read that again...) But put it to you this way; what are we going to do about it? 13 years of Liberal standoffishness has not settled the issue at all. Being friendly might help resolve one issue, if we can agree to work together on other issues. Really, the only thing that will make them abide by it is them. There's no international police force that can come by and say 'make it happen'. So we need to compromise. It might suck being the smaller guy in the negotiation process, but it's a reality.

I also agree that we need to look at the bigger picture, but I think North America is too limiting. We all need to see ourselves as citizens of the global community, and accept the responsibilities that come along with that. The US also needs to step up to the plate in that regard.

I think the future is in economic trading blocks. With the rising energy demand the 'global' economy might prove too expensive, and it will be far more lucrative to work domestically on most issues. I think it's only a matter of time (obviously not in the short term) until we think of Mexico/USA/Canada as one economic unit. As much as I wish for a truly 'global' community, I'm afraid it's just a pipe dream. Sorry, John Lennon.

I think the future is in economic trading blocks. With the rising energy demand the 'global' economy might prove too expensive, and it will be far more lucrative to work domestically on most issues. I think it's only a matter of time (obviously not in the short term) until we think of Mexico/USA/Canada as one economic unit. As much as I wish for a truly 'global' community, I'm afraid it's just a pipe dream. Sorry, John Lennon.
Currently, the US is totally reliant on the global community, and her growing trade deficit proves that.

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

I think Canada needs to expand her global trade and rely less on US sustainability.

I agree that Arctic sovereignty is a questionable issue as far as priority goes. Legally, it's only as shaky as someone's will to enforce it. At the very least we would have the right to extend a claim over a certain mile radius (I can't remember the amount) from the main shore of NWT/Yukon/Nunavut. That would be standard international practice.


Absolutely. But I think part of the issue is that we are also laying claim to areas that, under international law, we don't really have much of a legal claim to (i.e. stuff that is outside our exclusive economic zone).


The 'Star Wars' stuff, although a sensible and legitimate focus for debate, isn't that big a deal in my opinion. We already co-operate with the US on continental defense through NORAD, and as far as I'm concerned it's an extension of that. If it weren't for the Liberal's minority position at the time, it would have been signed by now. Nobody's talking about putting nuclear weapons on our soil. We're talking about missles to shoot down incoming missles. We've been co-operating with the US on such matters long before the rise of 'Terrorism' (in it's modern format).


I would like to see some debate on this, because I think that the government is going to try to sneak this one through. Harper kept it pretty low key when he mentioned that we were "re-opening discussions" on this one, and I'd be willing to bet that is one of the things that Peter and Condi were talking about. I think if anything, it was killed by massive public opposition as opposed to the Liberals minority position. The Liberals minority situation just made it more likely that they were going to have bow to public pressure on this one.

I have no problem co-operating with the US on genuine defence issues. But I do have a problem with missiles, nuclear or not, on our soil, for a few reasons. One I think it makes us a greater target for attacks by terrorists, rogue states, and whoever else might want to take a pot shot at the US. That risk might be worthwhile if there was a counterbalancing benefit. But the system is also inordinately expensive, and by many accounts, will not work. So I question whether the risk is worth the reward. And more importantly, from what I understand, Star Wars is not really about defence anyway. As Gwynne Dyer has pointed out, the missile defence system is unlikely to be effective against a first strike by another nation ... too many missiles would get through. What it would be effective against is a retaliatory strike by another nation after the US has launched a first strike against them. The system would be able to cope with the smaller number of incoming missiles. So it is a shield, but one that is designed to enable the US to use a sword (i.e. the threat of a first strike against another nation, knowing that they will be relatively safe from a retaliatory strike). I don't think I need to go into why the implications of that are troubling.

Either way, this has little to do with the rise of terrorism in my view, because this system presents no credible defence against terrorists.


All right, you're right that they're wrong. (Had to read that again...) But put it to you this way; what are we going to do about it? 13 years of Liberal standoffishness has not settled the issue at all. Being friendly might help resolve one issue, if we can agree to work together on other issues. Really, the only thing that will make them abide by it is them. There's no international police force that can come by and say 'make it happen'. So we need to compromise. It might suck being the smaller guy in the negotiation process, but it's a reality.


I think that is why, at the end of the day, it is not such a good idea to get into bed with a giant. No matter what you agree to, they are going to end up dictating the terms. Free Trade supporters point to what the FTA did to increase trade between the two countries. I for one do not think that total dependence on one country for most of our exports is healthy, and I think our bigger priority should be looking for better trading partners, preferably ones that actually play by the rules.


I think the future is in economic trading blocks. With the rising energy demand the 'global' economy might prove too expensive, and it will be far more lucrative to work domestically on most issues. I think it's only a matter of time (obviously not in the short term) until we think of Mexico/USA/Canada as one economic unit. As much as I wish for a truly 'global' community, I'm afraid it's just a pipe dream. Sorry, John Lennon.

I agree that economically, trading blocs will be important. But there are so many issues that we are facing as a species that simply are not addressed by trade agreements, and are going to require massive international co-operation, and I fear the mechanisms we have in place are not adequate to cope with the kinds of problems we are going to face. I don't have some rainbows and butterflies vision of everyone getting along, but I do think we are all going to have to start thinking outside the boundaries of our nation-state and our regional trading bloc if modern civilization is going to see out the 21st century.

Absolutely. But I think part of the issue is that we are also laying claim to areas that, under international law, we don't really have much of a legal claim to (i.e. stuff that is outside our exclusive economic zone).

There's an interesting rumour (I might have heard it on this forum, not sure) that part of the conservative 'Arctic platform' is that they expect that the Northwest passage will open up due to global warming. Thus, they see a future where they may need to assert Canadian influence off of our Arctic shores. On the status of the Queen Charlotte Islands... I am in doubt.

I would like to see some debate on this, because I think that the government is going to try to sneak this one through. Harper kept it pretty low key when he mentioned that we were "re-opening discussions" on this one, and I'd be willing to bet that is one of the things that Peter and Condi were talking about. I think if anything, it was killed by massive public opposition as opposed to the Liberals minority position. The Liberals minority situation just made it more likely that they were going to have bow to public pressure on this one.

The public pressure was what I was referring to; as far as Martin's minority government is concerned. I think Paul Martin might have behaved completely differently had he a majority government. (He was so busy just trying to please everyone that he pissed off everyone.)

I have no problem co-operating with the US on genuine defence issues. But I do have a problem with missiles, nuclear or not, on our soil, for a few reasons. One I think it makes us a greater target for attacks by terrorists, rogue states, and whoever else might want to take a pot shot at the US. That risk might be worthwhile if there was a counterbalancing benefit. But the system is also inordinately expensive, and by many accounts, will not work. So I question whether the risk is worth the reward. And more importantly, from what I understand, Star Wars is not really about defence anyway. As Gwynne Dyer has pointed out, the missile defence system is unlikely to be effective against a first strike by another nation ... too many missiles would get through. What it would be effective against is a retaliatory strike by another nation after the US has launched a first strike against them. The system would be able to cope with the smaller number of incoming missiles. So it is a shield, but one that is designed to enable the US to use a sword (i.e. the threat of a first strike against another nation, knowing that they will be relatively safe from a retaliatory strike). I don't think I need to go into why the implications of that are troubling.

Truth be told, I hadn't given much thought to the 'shield' enabling the 'sword' aspect of things... although I would like to think that some insurance is better than no insurance. However, I can't see Canada becoming a target for that, anymore than any other form of co-operation we have had with the US over the past and present. We are already listed as a target by terrorist groups.

Either way, this has little to do with the rise of terrorism in my view, because this system presents no credible defence against terrorists.

Not against terrorists, but against 'rogue states' perhaps?

I think that is why, at the end of the day, it is not such a good idea to get into bed with a giant. No matter what you agree to, they are going to end up dictating the terms. Free Trade supporters point to what the FTA did to increase trade between the two countries. I for one do not think that total dependence on one country for most of our exports is healthy, and I think our bigger priority should be looking for better trading partners, preferably ones that actually play by the rules.

We've been in bed with that giant for a long time. There's no divorce. And there's no way to enforce trading rules apart from agreeing to abide by them. We can certainly shop around some, but transportation costs alone will mean that if we are trading internationally, we'll be doing a lot of it on this continent.

I agree that economically, trading blocs will be important. But there are so many issues that we are facing as a species that simply are not addressed by trade agreements, and are going to require massive international co-operation, and I fear the mechanisms we have in place are not adequate to cope with the kinds of problems we are going to face. I don't have some rainbows and butterflies vision of everyone getting along, but I do think we are all going to have to start thinking outside the boundaries of our nation-state and our regional trading bloc if modern civilization is going to see out the 21st century.

It's a nice thought, but I don't see how it's going to happen. The industrialization of China and India alone is going to have massive repercussions for the environment and the global/political order. There are very few nations, espescially the 'big' ones, who are willing to let an international group call the shots. It's just not going to happen.

I personally believe that as energy costs skyrocket, and the Asian Tigers grow, the US is going to become more isolationist and the trend towards 'globalisation' will stagnate. Even if we find reliable alternative energy sources, I still believe that the cost to ship things long distance will officially put an end to the kind of global economy that we are currently developing. Which means, in my view, the rise of economic zones where each area pretty much gets by with minimal interference from another.

Not exactly a Utopia, but that's how it seems to add up to me.

Agreed. Democracy should not be winner take all, and it certainly should not be about a party that got 35% of the popular vote ramming through an agenda that 65% of us did not want.

It's actually worse with representative-democracy. If you look at the math, it is possible for just over 25% of the population to attain a majority in a parliament, given a firt-past-the-post electoral system. This would probably require egregious gerrymandering to accomplish, but that only makes it worse, because it would be a display of profound contempt for the principles of democracy. The NSDAP are a good example of profound disrespect of democracy.

p.s. The NSDAP are the not-nice people who ruined the swastika for the rest of us.:mad: