Pragmatic, yes - conservative, no. There are times when the solution is to go for the old, tried and tested methods, but often you want the latest methods or to invent new ones. You can't be an electronics developer by sticking to the circuits your grandfather used.
Then we agree on the main point here.
There are good things and bad things about US society, and there are many reasons for them. And many things change over time - both within the US and the rest of the world. Yes, the US has been (and still is) very successful in many respects, but no, that does not mean it is a good model for the rest of the world. The rest of the world is not the USA. The Norwegian model is very successful - by most international rankings (standard of living, happiness, health, disposable income, etc.), Norway is way ahead of the USA. But that doesn't mean the USA would be better off "switching to the Norwegian model" - or that it would be possible to do so.
I think it is particularly sad the obsession many Americans have with their constitution. It is 200 years outdated, you have never followed many of the key points ("all men are equal", unless they are of different skin colour, or different social classes), and yet it is treated with more holy reverence than any religious book.
If Americans are happy with the state of their country (though the GORA's here are apparently far from happy with it), then that's great - live the way that works for you folks. But don't kid yourselves into thinking it is a perfect way of life, or better than every other country, or that other people would be better if they copied it.
Again your opinion, but not something you have thought about very much.
S/DOS of political operating systems. Everybody else has adopted later - mu ch better - systems, which were explicitly designed to avoid the defects of the US prototype
perceive as the defects of the U.S. constitution?
iffered from the US constitution, and why it was better.
arison
ustrial countries - is covered by
rty/parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Representativ es, whereas the US President is directly elected by the people and must app oint non-members of the congress to fill ministerial posts."
e confidence of the House of Representatives, and this can be lost at any m oment.
These are differences, but you failed to prove if either is better.
In the long term we all die. So your future does not look any better than mine.
In the opinion of those who know what words mean. The silent majority is us ually wise enough to shut when they are out of their depth.
Why should I care how multi-ethnic the US happens to be? The USA is screwin g itself up by getting progressively more economically unequal. The very ri ch are rather more white Anglo-Saxon Protestant than the rest of the countr y, and the country pays more attention to their irrational prejudices than it should, but it's the economic inequality that doing the damage rather th an the incidental ethnic-based dis-satisfactions.
MS/DOS of political operating systems. Everybody else has adopted later - much better - systems, which were explicitly designed to avoid the defects of the US prototype
ou perceive as the defects of the U.S. constitution?
differed from the US constitution, and why it was better.
mparison
ndustrial countries - is covered by
party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Representat ives, whereas the US President is directly elected by the people and must a ppoint non-members of the congress to fill ministerial posts."
the confidence of the House of Representatives, and this can be lost at any moment.
I leave that to the real world. Setting up an administrative system where t he administration can spend four year in power while not having the capacit y to pass legislation is so obviously foolish that even you should be able to understand the problem. The fact that no other advanced industrial count ry is so foolish should be persuasive, but Americans think that they live i n God's only country, and ignore what everybody else does.
n mine.
But I'll go to heaven - on the basis of my political missionary work - and you'll probably end up in limbo, since you couldn't understand the issues i nvolved.
usually wise enough to shut when they are out of their depth.
Actually you are wrong. Conservatism is about not changing unless there is a good reason to change. And not trying to work at or beyond what is know n to work.
ing itself up by getting progressively more economically unequal. The very rich are rather more white Anglo-Saxon Protestant than the rest of the coun try, and the country pays more attention to their irrational prejudices tha n it should, but it's the economic inequality that doing the damage rather than the incidental ethnic-based dis-satisfactions.
You should not care, but you feel it is necessary to express an opinion any way.
he MS/DOS of political operating systems. Everybody else has adopted later
- much better - systems, which were explicitly designed to avoid the defect s of the US prototype
you perceive as the defects of the U.S. constitution?
on differed from the US constitution, and why it was better.
comparison
industrial countries - is covered by
e party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Represent atives, whereas the US President is directly elected by the people and must appoint non-members of the congress to fill ministerial posts."
s the confidence of the House of Representatives, and this can be lost at a ny moment.
the administration can spend four year in power while not having the capac ity to pass legislation is so obviously foolish that even you should be abl e to understand the problem. The fact that no other advanced industrial cou ntry is so foolish should be persuasive, but Americans think that they live in God's only country, and ignore what everybody else does.
And yet the U.S. economy is larger than all other countries economies. So in spite of your opinion , it must be doing something right.
han mine.
d you'll probably end up in limbo, since you couldn't understand the issues involved.
Sorry but you and I will both be dead. If you have any proof that a heaven exists, I would like to know what that proof is.
s usually wise enough to shut when they are out of their depth.
is a good reason to change. And not trying to work at or beyond what is kn own to work.
Pragmatism is less restricted.
h.
ewing itself up by getting progressively more economically unequal. The ver y rich are rather more white Anglo-Saxon Protestant than the rest of the co untry, and the country pays more attention to their irrational prejudices t han it should, but it's the economic inequality that doing the damage rathe r than the incidental ethnic-based dis-satisfactions.
nyway.
It was not an opinion about how "multi-ethnic" the US happens to be.
the MS/DOS of political operating systems. Everybody else has adopted late r - much better - systems, which were explicitly designed to avoid the defe cts of the US prototype
do you perceive as the defects of the U.S. constitution?
tion differed from the US constitution, and why it was better.
a-comparison
ed industrial countries - is covered by
the party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Represe ntatives, whereas the US President is directly elected by the people and mu st appoint non-members of the congress to fill ministerial posts."
has the confidence of the House of Representatives, and this can be lost at any moment.
re the administration can spend four year in power while not having the cap acity to pass legislation is so obviously foolish that even you should be a ble to understand the problem. The fact that no other advanced industrial c ountry is so foolish should be persuasive, but Americans think that they li ve in God's only country, and ignore what everybody else does.
o in spite of your opinion, it must be doing something right.
It used to do things better than most other countries, but the competition has raised it's game in recent years. The European Union's GDP is now large r than that of the USA, and while China - the next largest single country e conomy - is only half the size of the US or Europe, it's growing a lot fast er than either.
than mine.
and you'll probably end up in limbo, since you couldn't understand the issu es involved.
en exists, I would like to know what that proof is.
So would we all. The strictly rational and evidenced-based approach is that we stop when we die. Our influence - in other peoples memories - does ling er on.
The most tangible lingering influence of the US is probably going to be the CO2 that it has dumped in the atmosphere, and it's scandalous unwillingnes s to do anything about mitigating this behaviour once US scientific researc h had demonstrated that this was a very bad idea. The fact that the US foss il carbon extraction industry was allowed to spend quite a lot of money spr eading misleading denialist propaganda doesn't reflect well on the country as a whole, nor on the regular posters here who have been suckered by the l ies.
This is Democratic propaganda to put some distance between Hillary and Obama and counter the current Republican strategy of labeling Hillary as Obama's Third Term.
crewing itself up by getting progressively more economically unequal. The v ery rich are rather more white Anglo-Saxon Protestant than the rest of the country, and the country pays more attention to their irrational prejudices than it should, but it's the economic inequality that doing the damage rat her than the incidental ethnic-based dis-satisfactions.
anyway.
It was a statement by you, but there was nothing that indicated you had any reasons for believing it was true. In other words it was just your opinio n.
- the MS/DOS of political operating systems. Everybody else has adopted la ter - much better - systems, which were explicitly designed to avoid the de fects of the US prototype
t do you perceive as the defects of the U.S. constitution?
tution differed from the US constitution, and why it was better.
usa-comparison
nced industrial countries - is covered by
f the party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Repre sentatives, whereas the US President is directly elected by the people and must appoint non-members of the congress to fill ministerial posts."
t has the confidence of the House of Representatives, and this can be lost at any moment.
here the administration can spend four year in power while not having the c apacity to pass legislation is so obviously foolish that even you should be able to understand the problem. The fact that no other advanced industrial country is so foolish should be persuasive, but Americans think that they live in God's only country, and ignore what everybody else does.
So in spite of your opinion, it must be doing something right.
n has raised it's game in recent years. The European Union's GDP is now lar ger than that of the USA, and while China - the next largest single country economy - is only half the size of the US or Europe, it's growing a lot fa ster than either.
So? Now try to connect that to the idea that the U.S. Constitution is wors e than other constitutions. You presented some facts but did not show any correlation , much less cause and effect. The closest thought of yours seem s to be that the government of China is better than the government of U.S. and the governments of Europe.
er than mine.
- and you'll probably end up in limbo, since you couldn't understand the is sues involved.
aven exists, I would like to know what that proof is.
at we stop when we die. Our influence - in other peoples memories - does li nger on.
he CO2 that it has dumped in the atmosphere, and it's scandalous unwillingn ess to do anything about mitigating this behaviour once US scientific resea rch had demonstrated that this was a very bad idea. The fact that the US fo ssil carbon extraction industry was allowed to spend quite a lot of money s preading misleading denialist propaganda doesn't reflect well on the countr y as a whole, nor on the regular posters here who have been suckered by the lies.
screwing itself up by getting progressively more economically unequal. The very rich are rather more white Anglo-Saxon Protestant than the rest of th e country, and the country pays more attention to their irrational prejudic es than it should, but it's the economic inequality that doing the damage r ather than the incidental ethnic-based dis-satisfactions.
on anyway.
ny reasons for believing it was true. In other words it was just your opin ion.
The statement I was objecting to was
"The US is unique in being multi-ethnic"
which is obvious nonsense. Pretty much every country has it's ethnic minori ties. Even the Dutch have the Fries (Frysk), who aren't easily genetically distin guishable, but do use a different language, not to mention a whole bunch of people from places that used to be part of the Dutch colonial empire, whic h did include Indonesia.
The fall-back claim "Not unique, but more multi-ethnic than most countries" , was unsupported by any evidence and doesn't look remotely plausible. Sinc e my opinion is that the ethnic make-up of the US doesn't have much influen ce on the way US society works - which is all about money - I'm not going t o dig out evidence for you.
the CO2 that it has dumped in the atmosphere, and it's scandalous unwillin gness to do anything about mitigating this behaviour once US scientific res earch had demonstrated that this was a very bad idea. The fact that the US fossil carbon extraction industry was allowed to spend quite a lot of money spreading misleading denialist propaganda doesn't reflect well on the coun try as a whole, nor on the regular posters here who have been suckered by t he lies.
Not really. Australia doesn't sell much coal to China, when you compare it with what the Chinese dig up for themselves, and if Australia decided not t o sell coal to China, the government involved would promptly be replaced by one that was more willing to accommodate the wishes of the fossil-carbon e xtraction industry.
In places like Iran and Chile, this would have been done by a right-wing mi litary coup, but the right wing in Australia is more politically powerful, and can get the result it wants by persuading Murdoch-owned newspapers to b e even more partisan than usual.
Not even the silliest left-winger thinks that Australia is big enough to ge t away with being ostentatiously green.
I don't need to. They've already started cutting their coal consumption - p artly because the more familiar kinds of air-pollution are giving them a re ally hard time.
The point is that they are playing catch-up largely by copying the west's t echnology. If the US had developed more and better renewable energy generat ing technology, China would have copied that. They have - in fact - develop ed better photovoltaic generating technology, produced in higher volume tha n anybody else's, which bankrupted large chunks of the German photovoltaic industry, but if they'd had the chance to ride on the coat-tails of the US, they'd have done that.
It would have been cheaper, and they'd have got more renewable energy gener ation earlier.
t with what the Chinese dig up for themselves, and if Australia decided not to sell coal to China, the government involved would promptly be replaced by one that was more willing to accommodate the wishes of the fossil-carbon extraction industry.
Try telling it as it is.
Dan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Australian Energy resources and major export ports Coal reserves in BTUs as of 2009 Full-time employment in coal mining since 1984 (thousands of people) Australian coal production (red) and exports (black), 1980-2012
Coal in Australia is mined primarily in Queensland, New South Wales and Vic toria. It is used to generate electricity and 54% of the coal mined in Aust ralia is exported, mostly to eastern Asia. In 2000/01, 258.5 million tonnes of coal were mined, and 193.6 million tonnes were exported. Coal provides about 85% of Australia's electricity production.[1] In fiscal year 2008/09, 487 million tonnes of coal was mined, and 261 million tonnes exported.[2] In 2010, Australia was the world's fourth-largest coal producer, after Chin a, the United States, and India. However, in terms of proportion of product ion exported, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, as it exports roughly 70% of coal production.[3]
it with what the Chinese dig up for themselves, and if Australia decided n ot to sell coal to China, the government involved would promptly be replace d by one that was more willing to accommodate the wishes of the fossil-carb on extraction industry.
ictoria. It is used to generate electricity and 54% of the coal mined in Au stralia is exported, mostly to eastern Asia. In 2000/01, 258.5 million tonn es of coal were mined, and 193.6 million tonnes were exported. Coal provide s about 85% of Australia's electricity production.[1] In fiscal year 2008/0
9, 487 million tonnes of coal was mined, and 261 million tonnes exported.[2 ] In 2010, Australia was the world's fourth-largest coal producer, after Ch ina, the United States, and India. However, in terms of proportion of produ ction exported, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, as it expor ts roughly 70% of coal production.[3]
Next time, read the whole sentence.
formatting link
In 2010 China's domestic coal production was 3,576 million tons. This is a lot more than Australia's 487 million tons. China's total net coal imports were 177 million tons in 2010, which is what my claim was about. Not all of Australia's coal exports go to China, and a lot fo what Australia exports is coking coal.
Are you saying that coking coal does not produce CO2 when used? Or is there some other reason for saying that a lot of what Australia exports is coking coal?
t all of Australia's coal exports go to China, and a lot fo what Australia exports is coking coal.
ere some other reason for saying that a lot of what Australia exports is co king coal?
Obviously, coking coal ends up as CO2 when it's used to turn iron ore into steel. In an ideal world we'd get metallic iron from iron ore by electrolys ing iron ore in the same way (or at least in a similar way) to the way we u se to get from alumina to aluminium, but at least the business of making ir on - and eventually steel - out of iron ore is less open-ended than that of just burning fossil carbon to generate heat, and for all sorts of reasons we'll probably be slower to move to a "renewable" way of making metallic ir on than we will be to move to more renewable ways of getting energy.
He was responding to a particular part of a single sentence, which he actua lly quoted in full in his response.
"Not really. Australia doesn't sell much coal to China,when you compare it with what the Chinese dig up for themselves, and if Australia decided not to sell coal to China, the government involved would promptly be replaced b y one that was more willing to accommodate the wishes of the fossil-carbon extraction industry."
His response addresses only the first clause "Australia doesn't sell much c oal to China," and ignores the next one "when you compare it with what the Chinese dig up for themselves".
He'd already plowed through a lot of verbiage to get to the first clause an d it would have made more sense for him to react to the whole sentence rath er than just the first clause. He would have had to do a bit more googling before he could do that and he'd have looked a bit silly after he'd done it so he's opted to use text-chopping to make life simpler for himself. He is n't bright enough to actually chop the sentence that I wrote, which he did quote in full.
I'm afraid your post suffers from the same "post before thinking" problem.
heir constitution. It is 200 years outdated, you have never followed many of the key points ("all men are equal", unless they are of different skin c olour, or different social classes), and yet it is treated with more holy r everence than any religious book.
Newton usually gets the credit for being the first to exploit calculus, but the version we all use is from Leibniz.
Wheels have changed a lot since they were first invented. The American cons titution is on a par with solid wheels made out of wooden boards.
The German constitution comes closer to the spoked wheel.
rint, as valid today as when it was first devised.
It's one set of principles, for a society where the people who start off wi th the most money end up quite a bit more successful than people with less money. Subsequent constitutions have paid less attention to looking after t he interests of the people who own the country, and have produced societies that look successful for a larger proportion of the people who constitute those societies. Equality isn't just something to aspire to - it brings une xpected and non-obvious benefits
formatting link
ost_Always_Do_Better
itious, more noble, or more virtuous, than then.
That's not what's going on. We've spent 200 years writing and testing bette r versions of the US constitution, and we've learned quite a bit, all of wh ich you reject because you think that the founding tax evaders were uniquel y wise, noble and virtuous.
That's not exactly hubris on your part, but it does fit the ancient Greek c oncept that those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad. In your case, the madness is in thinking that the founding tax evaders were unambi tious, wise or noble.
They were educated, largely because they were well-off, but the other virtu es do seem to be imagined. Education was an expensive luxury at the time. B enjamin Franklin was also well-educated, but he'd taught himself, and it is noticeable that he'd been sent off to France as soon as the war of indepen dence had been won and had no direct influence on the writing of the US con stitution. Tom Paine was less well-educated - he doesn't ever seem to have learned Latin - but he got sent off to France as well.
So the US constitution got written by a committee of the well-off, and it's served the well-off well ever since.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.